l e t t e r
f r o m
t h e
e d i t o r
Dear Carolina Fan, Hello and welcome to college basketball season! Let me start by thanking you for purchasing Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–10: An Annual Guide to North Carolina Basketball. This is our third edition of Tip-Off and, like in the first two, we strive to provide fresh information and thoughtful analysis about the Heels from cover to cover. Many of the statistics (and accompanied analyses) found within are only available in this publication. We re-watch and hand-chart every Carolina game to meticulously accumulate the data used in the magazine. It’s a labor of love, and we hope you have as much fun studying our numbers as we did collecting them. In the first two seasons Tip-Off has been published, the Heels have gone to two Final Fours and won a national championship. While it’s possible that we’re a lucky charm, it’s more likely that Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, and Green were supplying the “luck.” And, with that quartet now in the NBA, it is probably time for a (temporary) expectation recalibration in Blue Heaven. This group, while exceedingly talented, is still young and largely unproven. There will be growing pains, especially with a non-conference schedule that features five top-25 opponents (including three of the top five)—all before the calendar hits January. Although 2010 might not end with a Final Four appearance (we’re still cautiously optimistic that it can), it is still a fantastic time to be a Tar Heel. Roy Williams’s recruiting rampage has continued, and the future looks bright for even the most pessimistic UNC supporter. As we celebrate the program’s 100th anniversary (and the Alumni Game over Labor Day weekend was an unbelievable way to kick it off), don’t let the growing pains get you down: We’re still lucky to be living in the glory years of North Carolina basketball. While there may be some bumps in the road in 2010, the expectations should be back to full-fledged “Final Four or Bust” mode by 2011. Contributors to this Annual include many members of UNC’s online community, as well as plenty of proud North Carolina alumni. It is truly a publication written by Tar Heel diehards for Tar Heel diehards. We hope to provide insight and analysis worthy of the most storied program in college basketball history. Enjoy the season and go Heels! Best Regards,
Adrian Atkinson POINTING TO THE PASSERS (ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS)
I would like to personally thank a handful of people who helped make this publication possible: my wife Katya for her unconditional love, support, and understanding; Jim Walsh for providing me with this opportunity; the authors, who did a great job of writing pieces that were consistent with the vision of Tar Heel Tip-Off; everyone who worked so hard to lay out, design, and produce this book—especially Bryan Davidson, Jon Franke, and Ryan Bray; my parents (and sister), for a lifetime of love, guidance, encouragement, and wisdom.
MAPLE STREET PRESS
TA R H E E L tip-off
2009
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
2010
s
2009–2010 ta r h e e ls
5 Behind The Box Score by Adrian Atkinson
Relive UNC’s win in the NCAA Tournament’s final game... minute by minute, shot by shot, in-depth statistic by in-depth statistic.
14 Statistical Glossary 15 Rebuilding Or Reloading? by Adrian Atkinson
12
Take a detailed look at what Carolina will have to do to repeat as champions, and get answers to ten burning questions about the team.
31 Scouting Reports And Statistical Profiles by Adrian Atkinson and George Hykal Biographies, game-by-game statistics, detailed shot charts, and more on all the important Carolina contributors.
57 Freshman Scouting Reports And Evaluations by Rob Harrington A breakdown of the Tar Heels’ incoming freshman class, complete with high school rankings, biographies, and projected box score stats for the upcoming season.
63 Sizing Up The Competition by David Glenn Learn what to expect from the rest of the ACC, from rival Duke down to NC State, and every team in between.
73 Welcome To The Block Party
21
by Corey Baker Using innovative stats garnered by watching and re-watching every game, see how UNC’s defense stacks up for this season.
77 Shooters Wanted by Corey Baker Taking advantage of more ground-breaking stats, find out whether Carolina’s offense is good enough to win it all again.
58
rECRUITING AND PLAYER DEVELOpMENT 83 Memories From The AAU Circiut by Jimmy Todds Recruiting is the lifeblood of any college program, go inside the AAU circuit for some tales from the recruiting trail.
87 Carolina’s Secret Weapon by Dan Wiederer One difference between high school and college? Strength and conditioning. Take a look at how UNC fitness guru Jonas Sahratian gives the team an edge.
92 Player Development In The Roy Williams Era
93
by Adrian Atkinson Roy Williams is known for breeding winners on the court, but is there evidence to support his reputation? An in-depth look at the numbers certainly suggests so.
93 Paving The Road To A Title by Adrian Atkinson Carolina has had its share of great players. Count down the school’s ten best recruiting classes of all time.
U N C HER O ES O F Y ESTER Y EAR 99 The Class of ’69 by Jim Sumner Remember one of Carolina’s best recruiting classes of any era, the class that helped put Dean Smith on the map: the Class of 1969.
105 Upset Special
103
by Dan Wiederer Everyone has their favorite UNC team from the past, relive one season that many fans put right up there, ’Sheed and Stack’s 1995.
110 UNC’s Best Players by Adrian Atkinson Get a different perspective on the best careers and seasons in Carolina history.
111 A True Carolina Legend by Nolan Hayes “There’s a genuine belief that unless Woody says it, it didn’t happen. He is Carolina.”
117 Marches To Remember by Adrian Atkinson “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”
Maple Street Press LLC 155 Webster Street, Ste. B Hanover, MA 02339 www.maplestreetpress.com © 2009 Maple Street Press LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in any way, stored in any type of retrieval device, or transmitted by any method or media, electronic or mechanical, including, but not limited to, photocopy, recording, or scanning, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
Front Cover photo: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Interior Front Cover photo: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Back Cover photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Cover design: Garrett Cullen Interior design: Garrett Cullen/MSP Adrian Atkinson, editor. Tar Hell Tip-Off 2009–2010 ISSN: 1942-0714
117 Maple Street Press LLC and Tar Heel Tip-Off are in no way affiliated with the University of North Carolina or the NCAA The opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Maple Street Press. All product names and brand names mentioned in this book are trademarks or service marks of their respective companies. Any omission or misuse (of any kind) of service marks or trademarks should not be regarded as intent to infringe upon the property of others. The publisher respects all marks used by companies, manufacturers, and developers as a means to distinguish their products. Printed in the USA
2009–2010
Behind the Box Score A Recap of the 2009 National Championship Game by Adrian Atkinson
T
he Tar Heels capped off a historically dominant march through the 2009 NCAA Tournament with an 89–72 thumping of Michigan State that wasn’t nearly as close as the final score might indicate. During its six-game run to the championship, Carolina outscored its opponents 527–406—a margin of victory of over 20 points per contest. From an efficiency standpoint, UNC bested its foes by over 27 points per 100 possessions by combining an offensive efficiency of 117.9 with a defensive efficiency of 90.8. No matter how you crunch the numbers, the 2008–09 Tar Heels were undeniably head and shoulders above the competition. Before jumping ahead to preview 2009–10, let’s first devote a few pages to recapping Carolina’s systematic dismantling of Tom Izzo’s Spartans. This piece will also serve as an introduction to some of the charting statistics that are presented throughout this publication.
First Half 20:00—For the 30th time in 38 games, Roy Williams sent out a starting five of Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Danny Green, Deon Thompson, and Tyler Hansbrough. Not surprisingly, this five-man unit played far more minutes together (351) than any other Tar Heel quintet. As seen in Table 1, the starting unit was also one of the most efficient lineups among those commonly used by Coach Williams. Against Michigan State, the starters led 21–17 in their 9.32 minutes as a unit. 19:57—After a held ball following the initial tip, Tyler Hansbrough easily defeated Travis Walton to gain possession for the Heels. This gave Carolina (primarily Deon Thompson) a 20–19 jump-ball advantage for the season (including the overtime tip at Maryland). While winning the opening tip is essentially meaningless in determining the outcome of a 70-possession
Tar Heels
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Table 1: Most-Used UNC Lineups during 2009 Season Minutes
Pace
Off. Eff.
Lawson-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Hansbrough
Lineup
350.7
76.5
127.6
Lawson-Ellington-Green-Hansbrough-Davis
119.7
75.6
135.9
Lawson-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Davis
86.4
73.8
136.5
Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Thompson-Hansbrough
52.4
71.5
121.0
Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Thompson-Davis
49.7
74.0
127.4
Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Hansbrough-Davis
44.4
74.5
109.3
Lawson-Frasor-Green-Hansbrough-Davis
37.2
72.1
124.8
Frasor-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Hansbrough
35.9
74.9
106.8
Campbell-Tanner-Wooten-Watts-Moody
32.0
89.0
83.3
Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Green-Hansbrough
30.1
72.4
131.0
Drew II-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Hansbrough
29.0
72.8
105.6
6 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Table 2: Sending an Early Message—How UNC Allocated Its First Possession of Games Player
FG-FGA
3Pt-3PtA
FT-FTA
TO
Pts.
%Poss.
Hansbrough
6-12
0-0
1-3
0
13
33.3
Thompson
5-9
0-0
1-2
2
11
30.8
Green
4-5
1-1
0-0
1
9
15.4
Ellington
2-3
1-2
0-0
2
5
12.8
Lawson
2-3
0-0
0-0
0
4
7.7
19-32
2-3
2-5
5
42
100.0
Total
sometimes catch some grief for his half-court schemes, the 2009 postseason showed what an experienced and cohesive Williams-coached team is capable of in that phase of the game. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the regular season and NCAA efficiency numbers as a function of possession length. 17:43—After Hansbrough was beaten off the dribble by Goran Suton (as Tyler recovered late from a pick-andpop), Thompson did a fantastic job of stepping up strong in help-side defense. As Deon cut off the driving lane, Green simultaneously rotated down to deny the passing lane to Delvon Roe (Thompson’s man) and force a Suton turnover. This play was indicative of the type of help (and help-thehelper) defense that the Heels played all tournament. The 2009 version of Thompson was vastly improved at making these under-the-radar defensive plays (both in primary and help defense). Green made those types of plays throughout his Carolina career—one reason why his plus-minus numbers were always dazzling. 17:35—Off of a dead ball, Carolina was still able to execute its secondary break. Running one of their favorite options, Hansbrough slipped a ball screen and Ellington found him cutting to the rim. Delvon Roe had no choice but to foul or allow a “Psycho T” rim rattler. A mere eight seconds after a dead-ball turnover, the Heels had already attacked for a score. Ellington was credited with a “FT Assist” on this play (a pass leading directly to a shooting foul). Carolina’s 2009 leaders in this category were: Lawson: 51 (1.94/40 minutes), Green: 26 (0.99), Ellington: 26 (0.90), Drew II: 20 (2.25), Thompson: 11 (0.47), Frasor: 10 (0.60), Davis: 9 (0.50), Hansbrough: 6 (0.23), and Graves: 5 (0.90). 16:38—Lawson banked in a Def. Eff. Net Eff. Raw +/transition floater just seven seconds 94.4 +33.2 874-620 after a made Michigan State transi100.1 +35.8 305-228 tion hoop cut Carolina’s lead to 8–5. 88.3 +48.2 213-144 118.9 +2.1 118-107 No point guard in Tar Heel history 100.5 +26.9 114-95 could crush an opponent’s momen91.8 +17.5 94-73 tum quicker than Ty Lawson. 97.8 +27.0 83-66 16:29—Leading 12–5, 104.4 +2.4 71-71 Carolina made its first substitu107.8 -24.5 60-76 tion of the contest with Ed Davis 114.5 +16.5 76-67 118.5 -12.9 57-61 checking in for Deon Thompson.
Photo on previous page: Gregor y Shamus/Getty Images
basketball game (we’re not talking about a football overtime coin-flip here), expect UNC to be much better than 50-50 on opening tips in 2009–10 with Ed Davis (or possibly John Henson) jumping center. 19:37—Carolina’s first possession of the national championship ended with a made turnaround jumper by Deon Thompson. He got outstanding elevation on this attempt, and his low-post game (primarily turnaround jumpers) was generally more effective at the beginning of games and halves when his legs were fresh. Table 2 shows UNC’s distribution of opening possessions from last season. Hansbrough (13) and Thompson (12) combined to use 64% of Carolina’s 39 initial possessions—a testament to Roy Williams’s pound-the-paint mentality. By the way, Thompson only made 33.3% (26-78) of his turnaround jumpers on the season—so an early hoop on a low-percentage attempt was a good sign for the Heels offense. 18:13—On UNC’s third possession, Wayne Ellington banked in a double-pump floater. This followed a Danny Green catch-and-shoot three-pointer. All three hoops to start the game were scored out of the half-court offense (freelance passing game). Carolina’s half-court offense was superb during the entire NCAA Tournament, as the Heels scored 250 points in 208 half-court possessions (those that used at least 11 seconds of the shot clock). This included a staggering efficiency of 141.0 (86 points in 61 possessions) in offensive trips that lasted at least 19 seconds. In the NCAAs, UNC’s half-court offensive efficiency of 120.2 was even better than its early-offense (seconds 1–10) efficiency of 115.9. This was a somewhat shocking deviation from Carolina’s regular season numbers, when they posted an early-offense efficiency of 123.2 and a half-court efficiency of 109.4. Defensively, UNC limited its NCAA opponents to a half-court efficiency of 87.4 and an early-offense efficiency of 94.9, both consistent—although better—than UNC’s regular season numbers defensively: 93.8 and 98.8, respectively. Although Carolina dominated in all facets during its championship run, the Heels were most overwhelming in the half-court (on both ends). While Roy Williams will
Behind the Box Score Table 3: UNC’s Offensive and Defensive Efficiency by Length of Possession—Regular Season and NCAA Tournament Regular Season/ACC Tournament UNC
UNC Opponents
Poss. Length (seconds)
%Poss.
Off Eff.
%Poss.
Off. Eff.
Net Eff.
1-10
63.8
123.2
44.5
98.8
+24.4
11-18
24.6
109.7
34.7
93.7
+16.0
19-26
8.9
111.3
14.8
98.2
+13.1
27-35
2.7
108.2
6.0
86.1
+22.1
NCAA Tournament UNC
UNC Opponents
Poss. Length (seconds)
%Poss.
Off Eff.
%Poss.
Off. Eff.
Net Eff.
1-10
53.5
115.9
45.0
94.9
+21.0
11-18
32.9
111.5
37.7
84.7
+26.8
19-26
8.9
145.1
15.0
93.9
+51.2
27-35
4.7
134.0
2.2
90.0
+44.0
As seen in Table 1, this lineup (Lawson-Ellington-GreenHansbrough-Davis) was UNC’s second most common of 2009—and it was even more effective than the starting lineup from a plus-minus perspective. 15:49—Soon after checking in, Davis was beaten down the court for a transition lay-up by Draymond Green. Defending in transition and on the perimeter are two clear areas in which he needs to work on as a sophomore. Improved strength and conditioning should help. 15:25—But on Carolina’s next defensive possession, Davis showed his value as a defender. Making a crisp rotation to help on a pick-and-roll, Davis’s shot-blocking threat forced Suton into a travel (another great help-the-helper rotation by Green, too). Davis was clearly UNC’s best help-side shot eraser in 2009, and did a great job of protecting the rim. Because of his length and athleticism, opponents only made 27.4% of the 294 shots they attempted when defended by Davis (as either the primary or help defender). 15:24—Bobby Frasor checked in for the first time, moving Wayne Ellington to the 3. After Graves’s suspension (and because of Ginyard’s redshirt), Ellington was forced into the role of backup 3. He played 290 minutes at that position in 2009 (nearly eight per game), and made big strides on both backboards during the second half of the season. 15:00—Ty Lawson did a terrific job of cutting off the penetration of lightning-quick Kalin Lucas in transition, forcing Lucas to take an off-balance floater. By slowing down the penetration, Lawson allowed Davis to rotate over for a helpside block (although the official scorer did not credit him with one—for the first time all season, UNC was held without a block in the championship game). Davis also controlled the defensive board, as he showed an impressive knack for blocking a shot and then corralling the subsequent rebound as a freshman. Back to Lawson: Carolina’s transition defense
was significantly improved in 2009 (as opponents’ offensive efficiency in seconds 1–10 of the shot clock dropped from 103.3 in 2008 to 97.7 in 2009). The biggest reason for that improvement involved Lawson’s willingness to locate and stop the dribble in transition. He always had the physical tools to do this, but in 2009, he made big mental strides defensively (fewer lapses in concentration, better job of communicating in transition, etc.). Some of these subtle upgrades in transition defense may have gone unnoticed, but they were definitely felt on the scoreboard. 13:50—More Lawson defense: By denying Lucas the ball at the top of the key (and forcing a backdoor cut), Ty forced the Spartans out of their offensive set and into a contested 18-footer by Raymar Morgan. These were the types of plays that—while clearly important—weren’t showing up in the defensive box score (since Thompson got credit for contesting the shot/forcing the miss). The charting category called “Denies/Forced Resets” captures this type of intangible defensive play (when a Carolina defender denies a pass, cuts off a dribbler, or otherwise makes a play that forces the opponent out of its offensive set and into a scramble/reset mode). UNC’s leaders in this category in 2009? Lawson: 40 (1.52/40 minutes), Ellington: 38 (1.32), Frasor: 31 (1.86), Green: 31 (1.18), Thompson: 27 (1.14), Drew II: 24 (2.70), Hansbrough: 16 (0.63), Davis: 14 (0.78), and Graves: 8 (1.44). 13:42—For the first time in the championship game, Carolina used a lineup that included only one of the “Big 4” (Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, Green)—as Roy sent out a quintet of Drew II-Frasor-Green-Thompson-Davis (with Ellington soon to replace Green). Against MSU, UNC trailed 11–5 in the 3.9 minutes in which zero or one members of the Big 4 were on the court. In the 36.1 minutes with at least two of the four on the floor, the Heels led 84–61. Table 4 shows the huge plus-minus cost associated with taking members of the Big 4 off the court during ACC and NCAA Tournament games (the splits weren’t nearly as drastic against the soft, non-conference underbelly of the schedule). 13:30—Drew II, just 11 seconds after checking into the game, dropped a pretty bounce pass into the post for Thompson, who converted a turnaround jumper. Although the pass was not credited with an assist (since Deon took a Table 4: +/- by Number of “Big 4” on the Court—ACC and NCAA Tournament Games # of Big 4
Minutes
Off. Eff.
Def. Eff.
Net Eff.
Raw +/-
0
35.9
48.9
89.3
-40.4
34-67
1
37.7
100.7
101.5
-0.8
70-69
2
161.9
111.0
111.1
-0.1
307-321
3
344.0
114.2
100.2
+14.0
710-628
4
385.5
129.1
97.4
+31.7
951-691
Total
965.0
116.8
100.5
+16.3
2072-1776
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 7
2009–2010 Tar Heels Table 5: 2009 UNC Post Entry Passing Summary
of his UNC career) led to an old-fashioned three-point play for Thompson (and plenty of emotion out of both Carolina 13.5 120 40.0 45.8 14.2 0.87 Drew II starting bigs). For the season, Carolina converted 70-91 10.4 274 38.0 42.3 19.7 0.90 Lawson possible “and-one” opportunities, led by: Hansbrough: 31 7.6 200 36.5 40.0 23.5 0.91 Green (converted 28), Lawson: 22 (15), Thompson: 11 (9), Davis: 9 6.1 176 39.8 39.2 21.0 1.01 Ellington (4), Ellington: 8 (5), and Green: 5 (4). 5.0 83 34.9 45.8 19.3 0.76 Frasor 10:55—More strong Thompson defense, this time in 4.8 27 48.2 25.9 25.9 1.86 Graves the form of a solid hedge which forces Kalin Lucas to retreat. 1.8 46 45.7 43.5 10.9 1.05 Hansbrough Despite the strong show by Deon, Lucas still got off a lightly1.8 33 45.5 48.5 6.1 0.94 Davis 0.6 14 28.6 42.9 28.6 0.67 Thompson contested three because Lawson made the mistake of going Total 26.4 1008 38.8 42.2 19.1 0.92 underneath the screen. Luckily for the Heels, Lucas missed 1. A successful post entry is one that ends with a made basket or a foul—either from the initial pass the pretty clean look (and the defensive board was cleared by or from the subsequent defensive reaction to that pass (e.g., an inside-out 3-pointer after feeding the post and kicking out). Thompson who crashed to the paint after hedging beyond the 2. A failed post entry is one that ends with a missed shot or turnover. 3. Resets occur when the post entry leads to a kick-out that forces an offensive reset (as the defense arc). And, although this play did not qualify as a “well-contestrecovers), the entry pass is deflected out of bounds, etc. Note: Offensive rebounds are not considered in this analysis (even though they are sometimes created ed” three, if you thought you were seeing Carolina’s defense by the defensive rotation forced by a good entry pass)—one reason for the relatively low success-to fail ratio (some “failures” are actually “successes” when considering second chance opportunities). contest more threes during the NCAA Tournament, your eyes weren’t deceiving you. As seen in Table 6, UNC had a 21% couple of dribbles to set up the footwork for his turnaround), spike in its rate of contesting or heavily-contesting threeDrew II immediately showed his proclivity and aptitude for pointers from the ACC to the NCAA Tournament (increasing feeding the post—qualities that should prove extremely useful from 34.8% of all attempts in the ACC Tournament to 42.0% to the post-dominated 2010 Tar Heels. Table 5 summarizes in the NCAAs). It helped that Carolina’s opponents missed Carolina’s post-entry statistics for the season (with Drew II at more perimeter shots too, irrespective of the level of defensive the top of the list in terms of frequency). pressure. Of course, that tends to happen on college basketball’s 12:53—More Larry Drew II goodness: His quick hands biggest stage as arenas get bigger and stakes get higher (if your and long arms forced two deflections as he harassed MSU’s name’s not Ellington, Lawson, or Green, that is). Korie Lucious. UNC’s 2009 leaders in deflections were: 10:25—Another example of great secondary break exGreen: 173 (6.6/40 minutes), Lawson: 172 (6.5), Hansbrough: ecution, as Hansbrough flashed hard to the left block to re100 (3.9), Thompson: 98 (4.2), Ellington: 97 (3.4), Frasor: 70 ceive a perfectly-timed wing entry from Ellington. Carolina’s (4.2), Drew II: 56 (6.3), Davis: 52 (2.9), and Graves: 31 (5.6). floor spacing was superb on this play, and Tyler finished with 11:46—After a rather weak hedge by Hansbrough his patented shot-put-style half-hook (after some nifty upallowed penetration by Ellington’s man, Deon Thompson and-under post footwork to create space). stepped up with another strong help-side rotation. Lawson’s 10:11—Danny Green took a terrible angle while fighting help-the-helper rotation allowed him to get a deflection and through a screen. Although his length allowed him to recover a steal. Noticing a trend? Just as it had been for most of the and lightly contest, the Heels were still lucky that this clean NCAA Tournament, Carolina’s help defense in the first ten look was missed. Neither Green nor Ellington was especially minutes of this game was just incredible. good at fighting through screens—an area in which Ginyard’s 11:41—And only a return will immediately Table 6: Guarding the 3—A Comparison of UNC’s ACC and NCAA few seconds after Lawson help the team. Tournament Defense by Level of Shot Contestedness collected a live-ball steal, he 10:00—At the quarter ACC drew a shooting foul at the mark, Carolina led 32–11. Level of Contest 2Pt. FG-FGA 3Pt. FG-FGA %2Pt.1 2Pt. % %3Pt.1 3Pt.% 97-124 12-28 15.3 78.2 7.2 42.9 Open other end of the court. No They would stretch out 213-321 103-225 39.5 66.4 58.0 45.8 Lightly contested team in the nation converts the lead to as much as 24 58-259 30-131 31.9 22.4 33.8 22.9 live-ball turnovers into points Contested in the first half at 46–22. 2-108 0-4 13.3 1.9 1.0 0.0 Heavily contested as efficiently (or as quickly) as Of the four quarters that NCAA Tournament Roy Williams’s Tar Heels. Carolina lost in the 2009 Level of Contest 2Pt. FG-FGA 3Pt. FG-FGA %2Pt.1 2Pt. % %3Pt.1 3Pt.% 11:16—After facing up NCAA Tournament (third 36-42 4-11 16.2 85.7 8.4 36.4 Open on the wing, an outstanding quarter vs. LSU, fourth 56-96 23-65 37.1 58.3 49.6 35.4 Lightly contested 23-93 8-53 35.9 24.7 40.5 15.1 Contested entry pass by Hansbrough vs. Oklahoma, second 0-28 0-2 10.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 Heavily contested (whose passing during the vs. Villanova, third vs. 1. This is the percentage of either 2-pointers or 3-pointers that Carolina’s defense contested to the degree NCAAs was easily the best Michigan State), none listed in the first column (e.g., 8.4% of opponents’ 3-pointers (11 of 131) were open in the NCAAT) Player
Entries /40
Total Entries
%Succ.1
8 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
%Fail2
%Reset3
Success:Fail
Behind the Box Score Table 7: UNC’s Efficiency by Quarter—ACC vs. NCAA Tournament was a first quarter. Table 7 contest. On the season, ACC further highlights UNC’s Carolina’s leaders in this Game Segment Pace Pts.-Pts. All Off. Eff. Def. Eff. Net Eff. first-quarter, step-on-theircategory were: Hansbrough: 74.8 360-324 105.9 95.9 +10.0 1st 10 minutes throats-early dominance 58 (2.3/40 minutes), Green: 66.6 389-332 129.2 109.6 +19.7 2nd 10 minutes in the 2009 Tournament, 28 (1.1), Lawson: 27 (1.0), 69.2 389-338 123.1 108.7 +14.4 3rd 10 minutes 75.6 404-376 114.8 107.1 +7.7 Last 10 minutes/OT and is in stark contrast to Frasor: 25 (1.5), Davis: 22 NCAA Tournament their ACC numbers which (1.2), Ellington: 14 (0.5), Game Segment Pace Pts.-Pts. All Off. Eff. Def. Eff. Net Eff. included a fairly pedestrian Thompson: 12 (0.5), Graves: 76.0 158-91 137.4 80.5 +56.9 1st 10 minutes efficiency advantage in the 10 (1.6), Zeller: 9 (3.1), and 74.0 122-111 109.9 100.0 +9.9 2nd 10 minutes first ten minutes. Drew II: 8 (0.9). 74.3 131-105 117.0 94.6 +22.4 3rd 10 minutes 9:16—Some sweet 6:50—Carolina 73.7 116-99 106.4 88.4 +18.0 Last 10 minutes/OT extended high-low action curled the red-hot Wayne between Hansbrough and Davis netted Tyler his second big-toEllington (8-10 from deep in the Final Four) off a baseline big assist of the first half. After just 25 big-to-big assists in the staggered screen (with screens from Hansbrough and Frasor) season’s first 32 games (0.78/40 minutes), Carolina had nine in to free him for a three-pointer on the left wing. “Free” might the six NCAA Tournament contests (1.50/40). The Heels were not be the right word, as long and athletic Durrell Summers running high-low sets much more frequently in the postseason, a did a great job of navigating the screens and contesting trend that should continue in 2010 since the posts are so skilled. the jumper. But Ellington’s elevation was superb, and all 7:50—Although it might be getting repetitive at this he needed was a fraction of a second to release this dagger. point, Thompson made another excellent defensive play—this As seen in Table 8, UNC rarely set up its threes by using time by aggressively hedging a screen to prevent Lucious screens, much less baseline staggered screens—most came in from turning the corner. Unable to attack off of the screen transition or after drive-and-kicks or unscreened perimeter action, MSU’s offense degenerated into a series of attempted passes. When you have a shooter as hot as Ellington, though, dribble-drives, the last of which was stolen by Ty Lawson. it makes sense to run a couple of sets for him. While Thompson’s first-half scoring and rebounding exploits 3:45—After a great defensive effort by Frasor to force (9 points, 3 boards) might have garnered more attention, his a contested three (despite a push-off), Thompson missed a subtle defensive contributions were just as important in helpbox-out assignment on Suton. Defensive rebounding has been ing Carolina to a huge early lead. a problem area for Thompson, although he has made steady 7:40—After a Lawson deflection, both he and Davis hit progress each year. He allowed the most offensive rebounds the floor to secure the loose ball. UNC had ten “floor burns” (92) of any Tar Heel last season. He also had the worst indiin the championship game—up from a yearly average of 5.9 vidual defensive rebounding percentage (defensive rebounds/ per game. Seven Heels recorded a floor burn, with Thompson defensive rebounds + offensive rebounds allowed) among (3) and Davis (2) collecting more than one. There can no UNC frontcourt players at 61.3% (Davis led at 73.6%, folquestioning the effort and intensity put forth by UNC in this lowed by Hansbrough at 68.9%, and Green at 64.7%). Table 8: Three-Point Shooting Summary Type of 3-Pointer1 3Pt-A (3Pt%)
Ellington
Green
Lawson
Frasor
Hansbrough
Graves
Drew II
Team
Perimeter pass
23-56 (41.1%)
21-59 (35.6%)
15-32 (46.9%)
3-20 (15.0%)
3-8 (37.5%)
3-12 (25.0%)
0-7 (0.0%)
70-206 (34.0%)
Drive-and-kick
20-39 (51.3%)
20-50 (40.0%)
10-17 (58.8%)
8-20 (40.0%)
2-3 (66.7%)
3-10 (30.0%)
3-8 (37.5%)
68-158 (43.0%)
vs. zone
17-39 (43.6%)
17-33 (51.5%)
18-33 (54.5%)
5-23 (21.7%)
0-1 (0.0%)
2-6 (33.3%)
1-6 (16.7%)
61-144 (42.4%)
Off-the-dribble
14-43 (32.6%)
9-23 (39.1%)
12-25 (48.0%)
2-8 (25.0%)
1-2 (50.0%)
1-1 (100.0%)
0-1 (0.0%)
40-104 (38.5%)
Inside-out
9-19 (47.4%)
8-18 (44.4%)
14-29 (48.3%)
3-9 (33.3%)
0-0 (-)
2-5 (40.0%)
3-8 (37.5%)
40-92 (43.5%)
Off a screen
9-24 (37.5%)
7-11 (63.6%)
0-1 (0.0%)
5-9 (55.6%)
0-0 (-)
0-4 (0.0%)
0-0 (-)
21-49 (42.9%)
Skip pass
5-12 (41.7%)
7-14 (50.0%)
0-3 (0.0%)
0-9 (0.0%)
1-1 (100.0%)
1-3 (33.3%)
0-2 (0.0%)
14-44 (31.8%)
Dribble hand-off/pick-and-pop
6-12 (50.0%)
5-10 (50.0%)
1-2 (50.0%)
0-0 (-)
2-7 (28.6%)
0-1 (0.0%)
0-0 (-)
14-32 (43.8%) 155-404 (38.4%)
Halfcourt
44-114 (38.6%)
38-91 (41.8%)
36-78 (46.2%)
14-46 (30.4%)
7-17 (41.2%)
7-25 (28.0%)
5-19 (26.3%)
Secondary break
19-41 (46.3%)
21-43 (48.8%)
8-17 (47.1%)
2-16 (12.5%)
2-4 (50.0%)
2-6 (33.3%)
1-3 (33.3%)
55-140 (39.3%)
Primary break
22-49 (44.9%)
18-50 (36.0%)
7-13 (53.8%)
4-11 (36.4%)
0-0 (-)
1-5 (20.0%)
1-4 (25.0%)
54-138 (39.1%)
First 10 sec. of poss.
50-109 (45.9%)
46-119 (38.7%)
24-52 (46.2%)
10-33 (30.3%)
2-6 (33.3%)
4-17 (23.5%)
2-8 (25.0%)
143-362 (39.5%)
Sec. 11-18 of poss.
23-65 (35.4%)
22-39 (56.4%)
14-36 (38.9%)
7-24 (29.2%)
2-4 (50.0%)
1-10 (10.0%)
2-11 (18.2%)
72-195 (36.9%)
Sec. 19-26 of poss.
10-22 (45.5%)
8-19 (42.1%)
11-17 (64.7%)
2-12 (16.7%)
1-2 (50.0%)
4-6 (66.7%)
1-5 (20.0%)
37-85 (43.5%)
2-8 (25.0%)
1-7 (14.3%)
2-3 (66.7%)
1-4 (25.0%)
4-11 (36.4%)
1-3 (33.3%)
1-2 (50.0%)
12-40 (30.0%)
Last 8 sec. of shot clock
1. The type categories are not mutually exclusive—a given three-pointer can be included in multiple categories (e.g., a drive-and-kick 3-pointer in the halfcourt vs. a zone defense).
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 9
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Although Ed Davis and the Heels didn’t officially block any shots in the championship game, they contested plenty. 10 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
When Tyler Hansbrough won this tip, it gave Carolina a 20–19 jump ball advantage on the season. case, an Ellington dunk. It was his 15th slam of the season, the fifth Carolina player to reach that mark in 2009. The team’s 143 dunks on the season were allocated as follows: Davis: 31 (1.7/40 minutes), Hansbrough: 30 (1.2), Thompson: 29 (1.2), Green: 24 (0.9), Ellington: 15 (0.5), Graves: 7 (1.3), Zeller: 3 (1.0), Lawson: 2 (0.1), Copeland: 1 (0.9), and Watts: 1 (0.5).
Second Half 18:16—Upon receiving a slick left-handed entry pass from Danny Green (which was maybe a bit too “cool” for Roy Williams’s taste) on the left block, Tyler Hansbrough connected on a turnaround jumper from the left baseline. Hansbrough, who had made just 24% (8–33) of his turnaround jumpers all season, knocked down 2-4 versus the Spartans. Sometimes, it’s just your night. 13:02—Frasor flew in out of nowhere to claim the offensive rebound on a missed Lawson three. While this was his only offensive board of the night, Frasor had five against Villanova in the national semis—mostly from chasing down long misses like this one. 11:59—Green drilled a step-back three from the right corner following a Lawson drive-and-kick. This shot pushed the lead back to 19, stopped a 10–3 Spartan run, and silenced a partisan crowd that was looking to will their team to an improbable comeback. If I kept a statistic called “daggers” to measure momentum-generating/momentum-killing buckets (I don’t, surprisingly), Danny Green probably would have
Bottom-left photo: Andy Lyons/Getty Images Top-right photo: Gregor y Shamus/Getty Images
3:29—Drew II allowed a top-of-the-key three-pointer to Lucious (as Izzo ran a version of UNC’s Long Beach set) after being absolutely stonewalled on a double screen by Suton and Draymond Green. As Drew II adds strength, he’ll start defending these types of plays more effectively. 2:16—For only the second time all season, Deon Thompson drew an offensive foul. It was one of three drawn by UNC in the title game (Lawson and Hansbrough had the other two). On the season, the team leaders in offensive fouls drawn were: Hansbrough: 28 (1.1/40 minutes), Frasor: 12 (0.7), Lawson: 7 (0.3), Graves: 6 (1.1), Drew II: 6 (0.7), Green: 6 (0.2), Ellington: 6 (0.2), and Zeller: 3 (1.0). 1:46—With the shot clock under eight seconds, Carolina ran a clear-out for Ty Lawson who drew a foul. Roy Williams put the ball in Lawson’s hands and let him create (often using a clear-out instead of a ball screen) in late-shot-clock situations all season. He scored ultra-efficiently on these possessions (a TS% of 66.5% during seconds 27–35 of the shot clock) and, perhaps even more impressively, UNC only turned the ball over on eight of its 87 possessions (TO% of 9.2%) during this shot clock segment. And, of those eight turnovers, Lawson was only on the court for four of them. 1:18—To match up with Michigan State’s two-point guard lineup of Lucious and Lucas, Williams inserted Drew II alongside Lawson for the final 78 seconds of the half. The pair only played together for 3.1 minutes all season, during which Carolina was outscored 7–4. On the first possession after Drew II’s insertion, he teamed with Lawson to force a live-ball turnover (caused by LDII’s ball pressure and Lawson’s anticipation and overplay of the passing lane). As usual, that type of miscue was quickly turned into a transition hoop by the Heels—in this
Behind the Box Score
Top-left photo: Andy Lyons/Getty Images Bottom-right photo: Gregory Shamus/Getty Images
Wayne Ellington’s dunk was one of only a handful of wideopen shots that Carolina got against Michigan State. led the team (with apologies to Ty Lawson). This was also the 64th assist from Lawson to Green on the season, the most by any combination of Carolina teammates, followed by Lawson-to-Ellington (57), Lawson-to-Hansbrough (45), Lawson-to-Thompson (32), Green-to-Hansbrough (27), and Ellington-to-Hansbrough (26). 10:47—With Izzo sticking to his two-point guard lineup, Roy Williams called a set play that involved posting up Wayne Ellington on the smaller Lucas. While Rashad McCants used to be inverted in the post frequently, the less-physical Ellington was rarely used this way at Carolina. The play drew a shooting foul, and was a terrific wrinkle by Williams and the staff (most likely a halftime adjustment in response to Izzo’s prevalent use of the Lucious-Lucas backcourt combo). Who said that Roy Williams doesn’t make in-game adjustments or do any bench coaching? (The answer to that seemingly-rhetorical question is: The same critics who claimed that, among other things, “Roy can’t win with his own players,” “Roy can’t coach half-court offense,” and “Roy’s teams don’t play ‘tough’ enough defense to win a title.” Suffice it to say, there is an ever-dwindling number of people criticizing Roy Williams these days. Although the, “You can’t take all those timeouts to the grave with you” critics are still fighting the good fight.) 10:04—This was a good example of how defensive charting works in regard to splitting credit and blame. Lawson (primary defender) and Hansbrough (help/hedge defender) were
teaming up to defend a Michigan State high ball screen. Lucas was able to create some pre-screen separation from Lawson, meaning that he had farther to recover. Also, Hansbrough’s hedge was not strong enough, which allowed Lucas to turn the corner and create more separation. Although Lawson recovered quickly, he lacked the length to adequately challenge the shot. While Ty’s man scored, the defensive box score entry for this hoop divided it between Lawson (for allowing prescreen separation which made his recovery more difficult) and Hansbrough (for not hedging strongly enough to give Lawson time to completely recover). As defense is, at its essence, a team activity, many defensive box score entries (for made shots, missed shots, and forced turnovers) will split the credit among primary and help defenders. 7:51—Hansbrough kicked the ball out of the post to Danny Green, who immediately re-entered it to Ed Davis for a made jump hook. On this play, Hansbrough was credited with a “hockey” assist for making the pass that directly led to the assisted pass. In the championship game, five of Carolina’s 13 assists included hockey (or second) assists. This rate (38.5%) was almost identical to UNC’s hockey assist rate on the season of 36.9%. Hansbrough led the Heels with two hockey assists in the title game while Lawson, Ellington, and Thompson had one each. For the season, the leaders in this category were: Lawson: 65 (2.5/40 minutes), Ellington: 40 (1.4), Green: 35
Carolina did most of its damage in the paint against the Spartans. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 11
2009–2010 Tar Heels
The Carolina Way: Win championships, cut down nets, visit the White House. recovering to contest from behind). This play was indicative of things Green and Frasor did well and poorly all season. Frasor’s help rotations and team defense skills were consistently among the best on the team. And Green, although allowing plenty of dribble penetration, would often recover to block or contest the shot. Carolina will miss plenty of the things that Green brought to the table, but with Ginyard, McDonald, and Strickland, the 2009–10 Heels should realize an immediate upgrade in lateral quickness and penetration containment from the wing position. 2:31—Speaking of plays that exemplified the 2009 Tar Heels, Danny Green deflected a ball from behind leading to a Bobby Frasor transition lay-up off of the live-ball turnover. No one got his hands on more balls than Green— Carolina will definitely miss the defensive havoc he created with his length and instincts. 1:03—Lawson, Frasor, Ellington, and Hansbrough left the court for the final time as Tar Heels. Roy Williams and Hansbrough embraced in an emotional hug on the sidelines—four years of hard work had finally culminated in a championship. No need to break down this play, the image speaks plenty loudly for itself, resonating everywhere that there’s a Tar Heel fan and a heart. MSP
Tyler Hansbrough learns that it’s fun to be a national champion. 12 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Adrian Atkinson is the editor of Tar Heel Tip-Off. A 1999 University of Richmond graduate and lifelong Tar Heel fan, he is an environmental economist who lives in Raleigh with his wife Katya.
Bottom-left photo: Andy Lyons/Getty Images Top-right photo: Jim Watson/Getty Images
(1.3), Thompson: 27 (1.1), Frasor: 24 (1.4), Hansbrough: 20 (0.8), Drew II: 17 (1.9), Davis: 13 (0.7), and Graves: 5 (0.9). 7:23—With both Davis and Thompson in foul trouble with four apiece, Green slid over to play power forward. Because Carolina had much less depth at the 3 and slightly more depth in the post, Green didn’t play nearly as much 4 in 2009 as he did in 2008 (2.5 minutes per game vs. 8.1). In both years, Green had a similar plus-minus impact as a 4—lineups that were outstanding offensively, but subpar defensively. 6:20—Hansbrough muscled through a post double-team to bank in his half-hook. Although he became much better late in his senior year about kicking the ball out versus post doubles, this hoop (much like his UNC record-breaker against Evansville) represented the quintessential Tyler Hansbrough basket. 4:10—With the shot clock expiring, Carolina once again ran a clear-out for Ty Lawson. This time, he was given the option of using a double high screen at the top of the key by UNC’s bigs. He declined the screens, choosing instead to attack the isolated right side of the court—blowing by Travis Walton for an easy lay-up before the defensive help could arrive. Remind anyone of the 2009 UNC-Duke games? 3:56—As Roy Williams was inclined to do in late-game situations, the Heels switched high screens (instead of hedging-and-recovering) on this possession. Hansbrough, defending All-Big Ten point guard Kalin Lucas after the switch, drew a charge against the much smaller player with a textbook example of sliding one’s feet on the perimeter. Among the big men, Hansbrough was clearly Carolina’s best perimeter defender (as Toney Douglas will probably confirm). His loss might compromise Williams’s ability to switch all ball screens in late-game possessions. 3:04—After Green was blown by off the dribble, Frasor’s well-timed rotation forced a missed shot (with Green
CHampionship Game Statistics Inside the Box Score vs. Michigan State Defensive Box Score Statistics vs. Michigan State
+/- Statistics vs. Michigan State Player
Minutes
Deon Thompson Ty Lawson Tyler Hansbrough Wayne Ellington Team Danny Green Bobby Frasor Ed Davis Watts/Copeland/Tanner/Campbell/Moody Larry Drew II Tyler Zeller
23.3 36.1 33.5 35.2 40.0 23.9 23.2 14.2 1.1 4.1 1.2
Pts.-Pts. All. 52-35 84-61 78-58 81-64 89-72 54-47 50-41 30-28 2-2 5-11 1-5
Off. Eff.
Def. Eff.
Net Eff.
Player
FG-FGA
118.2 121.7 119.1 115.7 115.6 122.7 116.3 109.1 100.0 55.6 33.3
80.5 87.1 88.5 91.4 93.5 102.2 100.0 98.2 100.0 137.5 200.0
+37.7 +34.6 +30.6 +24.3 +22.1 +20.5 +16.3 +10.9 0.0 -81.9 -166.7
Lawson Ellington Frasor Davis Thompson Green Hansbrough Zeller Drew II Watts Campbell Tanner Team Poss. Totals
5-13.5 1-5 1-5 2-4 1-3 3-9 5-8.5 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-1 1-1 2-3 22-55
+/- by Backcourt Minutes 20.4 14.4 2.8 1.3 1.1
Lawson-Frasor Lawson-Ellington Drew II-Frasor Lawson-Drew II Campbell-Tanner
Pts.-Pts. All. 47-32 35-27 3-9 2-2 2-2
Minutes 19.0 8.8 5.7 4.2 1.2 1.1
Pts.-Pts. All. 44-28 21-16 13-14 8-7 1-5 2-2
+/- by # of Big Four on Court Minutes 19.8 13.9 2.4 2.8 1.1
4 3 2 1 0
Pts.-Pts. All. 48-41 30-17 6-3 3-9 2-2
Minutes 9.3 7.0 5.7 4.8 4.0 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.02
0-0 0-1 2-4 4-6 4-5 5-7 4-4 2-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 21-29
Forced TOs 11 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
Floor Burns 1 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10
Defl. 9 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 17
Denies/ Resets 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Open Lightly contested Contested Heavily contested
2PtFG-A 5-5 8-15 10-23 0-6
Open Lightly contested Contested Heavily contested
2PtFG-A 4-4 8-18 3-9 0-1
UNC %2Pt. FG% 10.2 100.0 30.6 53.3 46.9 43.5 12.2 0.0 Michigan State %2Pt. FG% 12.5 100.0 56.3 44.4 28.1 33.3 3.1 0.0
DRs 4 2 0 6 3 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 24
OR All. 1 0 2 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
3PtFG-A 0-0 4-7 1-5 0-0
%3Pt. 0.0 58.3 41.7 0.0
FG% – 57.1 20.0 –
3PtFG-A 0-1 4-10 3-12 0-0
%3Pt. 4.3 43.5 52.2 0.0
FG% 0.0 40.0 25.0 –
Shooting by Area vs. Michigan State UNC Floor Location Close Non-close Paint Mid-range Corner 3s Wing 3s Top of key 3s
+/- by Lineup Combination Lawson-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Hansbrough Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Thompson-Hansbrough Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Green-Hansbrough Lawson-Ellington-Green-Hansbrough-Davis Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Hansbrough-Davis Lawson-Frasor-Green-Thompson-Davis Drew II-Frasor-Ellington-Thompson-Davis Lawson-Frasor-Green-Thompson-Hansbrough Lawson-Drew II-Ellington-Thompson-Hansbrough Drew II-Frasor-Ellington-Davis-Zeller Campbell-Tanner-Watts-Moody-Copeland Lawson-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Davis Drew II-Frasor-Green-Thompson-Davis
Pts. All. 10 3 5 9 6 12 16 2 3 0 0 2 4 72
FT-FTA
Shooting by Level of Contestedness vs. Michigan State
+/- by Frontcourt Thompson-Hansbrough Hansbrough-Davis Green-Hansbrough Thompson-Davis Davis-Zeller Moody-Copeland
3Pt3PtA 0-5 1-3 1-4 1-1 0-0 1-5 2-3 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 7-23
Pts.-Pts. All. 21-17 21-7 13-14 14-10 7-6 6-3 2-3 0-2 2-2 1-5 2-2 0-0 0-1
FG-A 8-20 11-16 4-13 1-1 4-7 0-3
Michigan State FG-A FG% 8-9 88.9 3-7 42.9 4-15 26.7 2-7 28.6 1-8 12.5 4-9 44.4
FG% 40.0 68.8 30.8 100.0 57.1 0.0
Efficiency by Shot Clock Segment vs. Michigan State UNC Seconds Used 1-10 11-18 19-26 27-35 Total (11-35) Total
%Poss. 42.9 31.2 16.9 9.1 57.2 100.0
Michigan State %Poss. Off. Eff. 54.5 85.7 37.7 89.7 6.5 200.0 1.3 0.0 45.5 102.9 100.0 93.5
Off. Eff 109.1 116.7 115.4 142.9 120.5 115.6
Passing Statistics vs. Michigan State Player
Asst.
Close Asst.
FT Asst.
Pot. Asst.
Pot. Close Asst.
Pass. TOs
Hockey Asst.
Entry Passes
% Succ
% Fail
% Reset
Lawson
9
4
3
20
6
1
1
13
38.5
38.5
23.1
Green
5
1
1
9
1
2
0
5
40.0
40.0
20.0
Hansbrough
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
2
100.0
0.0
0.0
Ellington
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
4
75.0
0.0
25.0
Frasor
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
–
–
–
Thompson
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
–
–
–
Moody
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
–
–
–
Drew II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
100.0
0.0
0.0
Davis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
100.0
0.0
0.0
Totals
18
7
5
35
10
3
5
26
53.8
26.9
19.2
Stop % 76.2 75.1 63.0 55.9 55.5 50.7 47.9 29.9 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 16.8 58.4
statistical glossary Possession-Based Basics
Defl.: deflections
Possessions: estimated as: [FGA + 0.475*FTA + TO – OR]; offensive rebounds continue possessions rather than beginning new ones—as opposed to the Dean Smith/UNC definition of a possession
St. %: % of defensive possessions in which a player records a steal while he’s on the court
Pace (or Tempo): possessions / 40 minutes Offensive Efficiency: points scored per 100 possessions Defensive Efficiency: points allowed per 100 possessions Net Efficiency: offensive efficiency – defensive efficiency Pace-adjusted: any statistic that is normalized for pace so that players on fast-paced and slow-paced teams can be compared using a baseline number of possessions / 40 Four Factors: (introduced in Chapter 3 of Dean Oliver’s Basketball on Paper) eFG% (Effective Field Goal Percentage): factors in made 3-pointers to a standard FG%; eFG% = FG + (0.5*3Pt) / FGA FTA Rate (Free Throw Rate): (FTA / FGA)*100 TO% (Turnover Percentage): turnovers / offensive possessions OR% (Offensive Rebounding Percentage): OR / (OR + opponent’s DR) The defensive four factors are: eFG% Allowed, Opponent’s FTA Rate, Turnovers Forced Percentage (TOF%), and Defensive Rebounding Percentage (DR%).
Bl. %: % of opponent’s two-point attempts that a player blocks while he is on the court Defensive Rating: created by Dean Oliver, this metric uses a player’s defensive box score statistics to estimate his impact on the defense; a player’s Stop% and % of defensive possessions are used to move the Defensive Rating up or down from the baseline of team defensive efficiency On-Court Defensive Efficiency: the team’s defensive efficiency during a player’s minutes on the floor Stop%: individual defensive stops (forced misses, forced turnovers, and defensive rebounds) / individual defensive possessions (defensive stops + scoring possessions allowed)
Passing Statistics Close Asst. / 40: number of passes per 40 minutes leading to made lay-ups, dunks, or directly to free throw attempts (Potential Close Asst. / 40 is the number of passes per 40 leading to these types of attempts) Paint Asst. / 40: number of passes per 40 leading to made non-close paint shots
DR% (Defensive Rebounding Percentage) = DR / (DR + opponent’s OR)
Mid-Range Asst. / 40: number of passes per 40 leading to made nonpaint mid-range shots
Player Profile Statistics
3-Pt. Asst. / 40: number of passes per 40 leading to made 3-pointers
TS% (True Shooting Percentage): measures a player’s scoring efficiency by factoring in made threes and made and attempted free throws; TS% = [points / (FGA + (0.475*FTA))] / 2
FT Asst. / 40: number of passes per 40 leading directly to free throws (also included in close assists / 40)
Usage Rate: a statistic introduced in John Hollinger’s Pro Basketball Prospectus, it calculates the number of pace-adjusted possessions used by a player per 40 minutes (includes FGA, FTA, assists, and TO) Reb. Rate: total rebounds (for a player or team) / total rebounding opportunities PER (Player Efficiency Rating): another Hollinger stat, PER is a pace-adjusted, per-minute, linear weight metric that calculates player efficiency based on box score statistics; the average ACC player has a PER that is set to 15; see the Pro Basketball Prospectus series for a detailed explanation of how PER is computed
“Hockey Asst.” / 40: secondary assists; that is, passes leading directly to (and helping to set up) the primary assist Asst. Rate: assists divided by made field goals by a player’s teammates during his minutes %Open Created: the percentage of potential assists that lead to open shots for teammates Open FGAs / 40: the number of passes per 40 leading to open shots Pot. Asst. / 40: the number of passes per 40 that lead directly to potentially-assisted FGA’s (or shooting fouls)
3PtA Rate: (3PtA / FGA)*100
Asst. %: assists / 40 divided by potential assists / 40
Similarity Scores: another statistic modified from Hollinger; compares the statistical similarity of players based on 10 categories (PER, Asst. Rate, TO Rate, FTA Rate, 3PtA Rate, Pts. / FGA, Usage Rate, Reb. Rate, Bl. / 40, St. / 40)
Entry Success%: the number of successful post entries (made FG or foul) / total post entry feeds
%Shots: % of team’s FGA’s taken by a player while he’s on the court
Entry Reset%: the percentage of post entry feeds that lead to offensive resets
TO Rate: % of a player’s individual possessions in which he commits a turnover
Passing TO %: passing TO / potential assists
Defensive Box Score Stats: Defensive box score stats are compiled by re-watching and charting games, and assigning defensive credit/blame to the appropriate defender(s) (credit/blame is often split between two defenders to account for help defense). Shooting statistics/percentages are based the number of made shots allowed and missed shots forced by an individual defender (either on his primary man or as a help defender).
WORP / 35: This metric uses box score statistics to combine perminute efficiency and playing time to determine the number of wins that a player is worth relative to a “replacement-level” ACC player at his position (using a regression model developed with ACC data from 1980-2009).
Entry Fail%: the number of unsuccessful post entries (missed FG or TO) / total post entry feeds
PCA:PTO: potential close assists-to-passing turnover ratio
Rebuilding or reloading? A Preview of the Title Defense by Adrian Atkinson
A
s a point of immediate semantic clarification, a Roy Williams team is never truly “rebuilding.” The use of that (admittedly clichéd) term is meant strictly in a relative sense. Coach Williams’s typical “rebuilding” roster would constitute a dream roster at 95% of other D-I colleges across the nation. Semantics aside, there’s no denying that Carolina’s “Big 4” of Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, and Danny Green have left for the greener pastures of the NBA. And along with them (and Bobby Frasor, Mike Copeland, and the walk-ons), so too departs 67% of UNC’s minutes played and 70% of Tar Heel production (75% of points, 58% of rebounds, and 77% of assists). But, to paraphrase Danny Green’s post-championship celebration speech at the Dean Dome (“We did, y’all, we did it. But the way we did it. Did you see how we did it?”), it wasn’t that the Big 4 scored a ton of points—it was how they scored them. It was a lethal combination of volume and efficiency that led to one of the greatest offenses in college basketball history. Lawson (first), Hansbrough (26th), Ellington (35th), and Green (52nd) all ranked in the top 52 of Ken Pomeroy’s Offensive Rating (ORtg) statistic (ORtg is a Dean Oliver statistic that summarizes all of a player’s offensive contributions to estimate how many points per 100 possessions he is individually responsible for.) No other team had more than two players in the top 52—and only one other BCS school (Texas A&M) along with four mid-majors (Utah State, Western Kentucky, Wisconsin-Green Bay, and Butler) had as many as two. To be useful, individual efficiency stats like ORtg must be viewed in conjunction with a usage stat. Wes Miller’s 2006 campaign was an incredibly efficient one but, due to his low number of possessions, he wasn’t deemed an irreplaceable offensive weapon, and, in fact, was largely replaced by freshman Ellington in 2007. When factoring in usage rates, the 2009 seasons for the Big 4 become even more spectacular. In addition to being the four most efficient players on the roster (and among the most efficient in the entire country),
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 15
2009–2010 Tar Heels Table 1: UNC Upperclassman McDonald’s All-Americans # of McDAA (Players)
1980
2 (Budko, Wood)
1981
2 (Budko, Wood)
1982
2 (Braddock, Worthy)
1983
3 (Braddock, Doherty, Perkins)
1984
4 (Doherty, Jordan, Perkins, Peterson)
1985
2 (Daugherty, Peterson)
1986
5 (Daugherty, Hunter, Popson, K. Smith, Wolf)
1987
4 (Hunter, Popson, K. Smith, Wolf)
1988
2 (Bucknall, Lebo)
1989
5 (Bucknall, Lebo, Madden, Reid, Sc. Williams)
1990
4 (Chilcutt, Madden, Rice, Sc. Williams)
1991
2 (Chilcutt, Rice)
1992
2 (Lynch, Wenstrom)
1993
5 (Lynch, Montross, Phelps, Reese, Wenstrom)
1994
4 (Montross, Phelps, Reese, D. Williams)
1995
1 (D. Williams)
1996
2 (McInnis, Zwikker)
1997
1 (Zwikker)
1998
2 (Carter, Jamison)
1999
1 (Cota)
2000
2 (Cota, Haywood)
2001
3 (Capel, Haywood, Lang)
2002
2 (Capel, Lang)
2003
0
2004
1 (J. Williams)
2005
4 (Felton, May, McCants, J. Williams)
2006
0
2007
0
2008
3 (Frasor, Green, Hansbrough)
2009
5 (Ellington, Frasor, Green, Hansbrough, Lawson)
2010
0
Average
roster will not include a junior or senior McDAA (see Table 1). Although, as any Carolina fan knows, a McDonald’s game invitation isn’t a precursor to guaranteed college greatness (see Neil Fingleton or any of countless recent Duke big men), the number of upperclassman McDAAs still serves as an excellent proxy for the amount of experienced talent on a collegiate roster. Carolina’s last three championship rosters have included five (1993), four (2005), and five (2009) upperclassmen McDAAs. The three previous Tar Heel teams with zero such players (2003, 2006, 2007) won a combined four NCAA Tournament games. There’s no disputing that Carolina’s roster is talented. But there is a dearth of experienced talent on the squad, at least compared to past UNC teams. How quickly those young studs can grow up and adjust to the college game will determine whether the Heels are just a very good team or a threat to march to the Final Four for the third consecutive campaign. So, without further introduction, let’s get down to business. The answers to the following ten questions will decide whether it’s a rebuilding or reloading year in Chapel Hill.
2.42
Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, and Green were also the four most utilized. Each player used an above-average number of UNC’s possessions (>20% of team possessions during his minutes on the court) while maintaining elite efficiency. The degree to which Roy Williams can replace the offensive output, and efficiency, of the Big 4 will, in large part, determine whether Carolina is truly reloading (with eyes on another Final Four) or experiencing a 2006-like “rebuilding” year (the type of rebuilding they’d love to be doing in Raleigh, College Park, or hundreds of other college towns across the country). And, of course, putting the ball in the hoop is only half of the equation, getting stops remains just as important. UNC can, and almost certainly will, be less efficient offensively but still threaten to hang banners if the defense can pick up some of the slack. While plenty of talent remains in Chapel Hill (seven McDonald’s All-Americans), most of it is young and largely unproven. For only the fourth time in the 31-year McDonald’s All-American era (since 1979–80, when it was first possible to have an upperclassman McDAA), UNC’s
16 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Larry Drew II’s offense might be a work in progress, but his defense is already ACC-caliber.
Photo on previous page: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images Photo on this page: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Season
Rebuilding or Reloading?
1. Who will replace Ty Lawson? Is Larry Drew II ready to be an ACC-caliber starting point guard? Without hyperbole, it can be declared that Ty Lawson’s 2009 campaign was one of the greatest seasons by a point guard in the annals of the ACC. His Player Efficiency Rating (PER) was the best among ACC point guards since complete box score data has been available (1980–2009)—and in those 30 years, only Ralph Sampson (1983) and Joe Smith (1995) have had better PERs at any position. His on-court/off-court plusminus numbers also speak to how valuable he was to Carolina (especially offensively): The team scored 125.3 points per 100 possessions with Lawson on the court versus only 104.5 points per 100 possessions with him on the bench. At UNC’s average pace of 75.2 possessions per game, the scoring difference would be 94.2 vs. 78.6 points per game. With Lawson in the game, Carolina turned the ball over on 15.0% of its possessions; when he was resting, that number skyrocketed to 19.8%. So how does UNC replace a guy like Ty Lawson? The easy (and correct) answer is “they don’t.” But Larry Drew II doesn’t need to become another Ty Lawson; he only needs to evolve into a better version of Larry Drew II. And step one of that process might involve slowing down the pace a little. It’s no secret that Roy Williams wants his point guards to push, push, and push some more. But as Table 2 shows, Drew-led postseason lineups were playing much differently than Drewled regular-season lineups. During the postseason (when Drew II accumulated a Lawsonian 13:3 assist-to-turnover ratio), Carolina played at a significantly slower pace during Drew II’s minutes. That drop in tempo was associated with an increase in offensive efficiency and a drastic decrease in Drew II’s individual turnover rate. Like in 2006 (with freshman Bobby Frasor), Carolina might have to sacrifice a few possessions per game (from the mid-70s to the low-70s) in order to break in a developing point guard. And while Coach Williams is seemingly obsessed with pushing tempo, even he would gladly sacrifice a few possessions each game for a few avoided turnovers.
Table 2: Larry Drew II: Regular Season vs. Postseason Minutes
Pace
Off. Eff.
Drew TO%1
Regular season
280.4
75.9
105.3
8.0
Postseason
75.5
69.9
113.4
2.2
1. Percentage of UNC offensive possessions (with Larry Drew II on the court) ending with a Drew II turnover.
To project what can be expected from Drew II as a sophomore, let’s first compare his 2008–09 freshman statistics to some other similar seasons from UNC point guards. Using our similarity algorithm, the five most statistically similar UNC seasons to Drew II’s in 2009 were: Adam Boone (2001, FR); Ronald Curry (2001, SO); King Rice (1988, FR); Bobby Frasor (2006, FR); Derrick Phelps (1991, FR). Table 3 compares Drew II’s 2009 to these five seasons, plus Quentin Thomas’s 2005 and 2006 freshman and sophomore campaigns, Ronald Curry’s 1999 freshman season, and Jimmy Black’s 1980 sophomore year. Although it might be somewhat terrifying for Carolina fans to see Adam Boone’s freshman season as the most statistically comparable to Drew II’s, this is not an especially accurate comparison. Boone (at his best) was a sweet-shooting combo guard who struggled making plays for others and handling the ball against pressure. When forced into the starting point guard role in 2002, the results were often disastrous. Drew II has been groomed as a pure point guard for his entire basketball life—his passing and ball-handling skills are clearly superior to Boone’s. Drew II’s freshman season was notably better than Boone’s (see assists per 40 minutes and PER), they’re only comparable because both scored so infrequently (and so inefficiently). As a rookie, Drew II was also superior, from a PER perspective, to Quentin Thomas and Ronald Curry. On the other side of the coin, Drew II’s freshman campaign was clearly inferior to Phelps’s freshman season and Black’s sophomore season. Even as underclassmen, those championship-winning Tar Heel point guards scored much more frequently and efficiently than Drew II in 2009 while maintaining similar assist rates and assist-to-turnover ratios. From a PER standpoint, the most comparable UNC point guards to Drew II were Frasor (2006), Rice (1988),
Table 3: Larry Drew II and Statistically Similar UNC Point Guards Player
Year (Class)
MPG
FG%
3Pt%
FT%
Pts./401
Reb./401
Asst./401
TO/401
St./401
A:TO
PER
Larry Drew II
2009 (FR)
9.6
35.1
23.1
41.2
5.4
4.2
7.6
4.6
1.5
1.64
9.3
Jimmy Black
1980 (SO)
19.7
45.1
-
67.7
10.6
1.2
6.7
4.9
3.3
1.37
13.3
King Rice
1988 (FR)
10.4
39.3
16.7
80.0
7.7
2.9
6.1
4.2
2.3
1.45
10.6
Derrick Phelps
1991 (FR)
9.8
49.0
22.2
76.2
8.4
4.1
7.2
5.0
3.3
1.45
14.7
Ronald Curry
1999 (FR)
13.0
24.5
14.3
61.8
9.1
4.9
5.4
4.7
1.3
1.13
5.4
Ronald Curry
2001 (SO)
27.8
39.8
35.1
57.4
7.5
4.6
5.8
4.0
1.7
1.45
10.3
Adam Boone
2001 (FR)
10.7
30.0
32.3
75.0
5.4
3.2
4.9
3.7
1.7
1.33
7.1
Quentin Thomas
2005 (FR)
6.3
45.5
33.3
70.0
4.4
4.4
7.4
7.6
1.9
0.98
5.5
Quentin Thomas
2006 (SO)
12.0
42.6
0.0
54.2
7.5
5.8
9.0
4.3
2.2
2.11
12.9
Bobby Frasor
2006 (FR)
27.5
37.4
31.0
77.3
9.0
3.1
6.2
3.4
1.3
1.81
10.2
1. All per-40 numbers are pace adjusted.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 17
and Curry (2001). Both Frasor and Curry were full-time starters on successful Carolina teams—even if Drew II doesn’t improve a bit (and almost all freshmen improve significantly as sophomores), he’ll be offensively similar to a freshman Frasor or sophomore Curry (trading a few points per 40 minutes for a couple of assists per 40). History has proven that a team can win with a point guard of that caliber, provided that he’s surrounded with enough scoring weapons. Now let’s consider a more likely scenario that involves Drew II making a typical sophomore-year leap in per-minute production. Table 4 shows the freshman-to-sophomore improvements made by five Carolina point guards who were statistically similar to Drew II. Three of those five (Phelps, Curry, Boone) went from primary reserve to starter (the path Drew II will likely follow), while the other two doubled their minutes as sophomores in reserve (Thomas) or part-time starter (Rice) roles. On average, these five UNC point guards increased their minutes from 10 to 23 per game as sophomores. With more consistent minutes and continuous court time, the three-point accuracy of this quintet skyrocketed from 21.6% (as freshmen off the bench) to 36.0% (as, in most cases, starting sophomores). This group’s PER also increased dramatically from 8.7 to 12.3, a 41% Drew II must show the ability to get into the paint, finish improvement—nearly twice that of the average ACC at the rim, and knock down perimeter jumpers. point guard between his freshman and sophomore seasons (11.4 to 13.9, 22%). Based on Drew II’s freshman-year Drew II can match the championship seasons of non-scoring numbers and how his comparables improved, his sophomore point guards Black or Phelps should temper their expectastat-line projection is: 25 MPG, 5.9 PPG, 5.1 APG, 2.16 tions, however. Both Black (PER of 18.1 in 1982) and A:TO, 42.4 FG%, 34.8 3Pt%, 13.0 PER—numbers which Phelps (PER of 20.4 in 1993) were well above-average point would make him extremely similar to King Rice or Jimmy guards during those campaigns. For Drew to approach that Black when they were sophomores. Anyone hoping that level would require an abnormally large improvement, the type that, while not unprecedented, Table 4: FR-to-SO Improvements for Larry Drew II’s PG Comparables is extremely uncommon in leagues as Pts. Asst. Player Year (Class) MPG FG% 3Pt% TO/401 A:TO PER /401 /401 strong as the ACC. King Rice 1988 (FR) 10.4 39.3 16.7 7.7 6.1 4.2 1.45 10.6 With perimeter shooting one of King Rice 1989 (SO) 20.4 43.5 39.1 9.0 7.1 3.4 2.08 13.1 the huge uncertainties and possible Derrick Phelps 1991 (FR) 9.8 49.0 22.2 8.4 7.2 5.0 1.45 14.7 weaknesses for the 2009–10 Heels, Derrick Phelps 1992 (SO) 31.1 40.0 28.3 11.2 7.7 4.1 1.86 16.2 how does Drew II project to contribRonald Curry 1999 (FR) 13.0 24.5 14.3 9.1 5.4 4.7 1.13 5.4 Ronald Curry 2001 (SO) 27.8 39.8 35.1 7.5 5.8 4.0 1.45 10.3 ute from behind the arc? His 23.1% Adam Boone 2001 (FR) 10.7 30.0 32.3 5.4 4.9 3.7 1.33 7.1 last season was troubling, but the 26 Adam Boone 2002 (SO) 24.5 45.8 43.0 11.4 5.0 4.1 1.24 8.8 attempts constitute an unreliably small Quentin Thomas 2005 (FR) 6.3 45.5 33.3 4.4 7.4 7.6 0.98 5.5 sample size. As a high school senior, Quentin Thomas 2006 (SO) 12.0 42.6 0.0 7.5 9.0 4.3 2.11 12.9 Drew II made 39.2% of his trifectas Avg. FR (UNC comps) 10.0 34.8 21.6 7.0 6.2 5.0 1.27 8.7 (58-148 in 27 games) over a much Avg. SO (UNC comps) 23.2 42.0 36.0 9.3 6.9 4.0 1.75 12.3 Avg. FR (all ACC PGs) 20.9 41.4 34.8 10.8 5.5 3.9 1.55 11.4 larger sample. Of course as a prep, he Avg. SO (all ACC PGs) 26.4 42.8 35.9 12.1 6.0 3.6 1.78 13.9 wasn’t being defended by players with Drew’s projected 5.12 2.42 2.16 13.0 2010 (SO) 25.0 42.4 34.8 5.92 either the length or quickness of those SO Stats found in the ACC. As seen in Table 4, 1. All per-40 numbers are pace adjusted. 2. Numbers based on an assumed 25 MPG (per-game--not per-40—averages)
18 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Rebuilding or Reloading? Table 5: Point Guard-Post Chemistry Report Point Guard-Post Pair
Shared Minutes
Shared Assists
Shared Assists/40
Off. Eff.
Drew II-Davis
227.4
19
3.34
108.3
Drew II-Hansbrough
156.9
11
2.80
111.4
Lawson-Hansbrough
778.0
48
2.47
126.4
Drew II-Thompson
197.7
12
2.43
106.1
Lawson-Thompson
699.2
36
2.06
126.4
Lawson-Davis
451.4
17
1.51
123.9
there is some evidence that supports a large three-point percentage increase for Carolina point guards moving from the bench to starting between their freshman and sophomore seasons. To corroborate those results, consider the ten ACC point/combo guards who attempted fewer than 35 threepointers as freshmen and significantly more as sophomores (at least 45 attempts and at least twice the amount attempted as a freshman). On average, this group shot 16.3 threes as freshmen and 79.7 as sophomores. Included in this surprisingly small group are four Tar Heels: Boone, Rice, Phelps, and Shammond Williams (the other six are: Clifford Crawford, Zam Fredrick, John Gilchrist, Duane Simpkins, Chezley Watson, and Terrell Stokes). In aggregate, this group improved from 29.4% to 37.0% from behind the arc as sophomores—a far more significant three-point increase than realized by the average ACC point guard between his first two years on campus (34.8% to 35.9%). Most shooters improve as sophomores, but that improvement is especially pronounced for players who experience large spikes in playing time and three-point attempts. This portends good things for Drew II as a shooter in 2009–10. While he’s projected to make 34.8% of his threes as a sophomore, it wouldn’t be surprising to see that number creep into the upper-30s (especially if shot mechanics—re-tooled during off-season workouts with his father and NBA coach, Larry Drew, Sr.—have improved). It is uncertain how much Drew II’s areas of weakness (scoring efficiency/frequency, three-point accuracy) will develop in 2009–10. But it is a much safer bet to expect Drew II to build on areas of strength in the upcoming campaign. One such area is entry passing. Drew II was, by a wide margin, Carolina’s most prolific feeder of the post (13.5 post entries per 40 minutes vs. 10.4 for Lawson). He also had a slightly higher Success% (post passes that resulted in made field goals or fouls) on his entry feeds than Lawson at 40% vs. 38%. One aspect of Drew II’s post feeding that will need to be fine-tuned is his decision-making. He had a penchant for force-feeding the paint at times to attempt the spectacular play—a tendency that led to 18.3% of his entries resulting in turnovers (nearly twice as high as Lawson’s 9.5%). But Drew II also made some sublime feeds into heavily congested areas; he really does have terrific passing instincts and a flair for
getting his big men involved. Considering that the strength of Carolina’s team is clearly in the paint, these are fantastic traits for a 2009–10 Tar Heel point guard to possess. Although Drew II was an equal-opportunity post feeder, he seemed to have a special chemistry with his roommate, Ed Davis. This rapport is quantified in Table 5. In the 227 minutes that Drew II and Davis shared the court together, the pair teamed up on 19 baskets (16 Drew II-to-Davis and 3 Davis-to-Drew II), or 3.3 per 40 minutes. Lawson and Davis teamed up on fewer than half as many, only 1.5 per 40. No Carolina point guard-big man combo had more hook-ups than the Drew II-Davis duo. That portends good news for Ed Davis, as he hopes to have a breakout scoring season as a sophomore. Another facet of the game in which Drew II showed flashes of brilliance as a freshman was defensive ball pressure. Roy Williams’s defensive system is predicated on this type of pressure, and his best defensive teams have been led by ball-hawking point guards like Jacque Vaughn, Aaron Miles, and Raymond Felton. Even in his first season, Drew II’s “disruption” stats were nearly as good as junior Ty Lawson’s (6.5 deflections per 40 minutes for Lawson vs. 6.3 Drew II; 4.2 forced turnovers per 40 minutes for Lawson vs. 3.7 for Drew II). He also drew significantly more offensive fouls than Lawson (0.67 per 40 minutes vs. 0.27). As further evidence of his strong defensive play, Carolina’s defensive efficiency was better in Drew II’s minutes (94.1 points allowed per 100 possessions) than it was in Lawson’s (95.2). As he adds strength (a point of emphasis over the summer) and becomes more comfortable with the defensive system, Drew II has the potential to be a dominating defensive point guard. Table 6 details Roy Williams’s record as a function of his starting point guard’s high school recruiting ranking. Drew II, ranked #44 by RSCI, will represent the sixth season in Williams’s 22-year career that he’ll start a point guard ranked in the 26–50 range. Not surprisingly, perhaps, top-25 point guards have led Williams to a higher winning percentage (in both the regular season and the NCAA Tournament) than their 26-plus counterparts. But as Adonis Jordan (who was in the 26–50 tier) proved in 1991 and 1993, it is certainly Table 6: Roy Williams’s Record by Point Guard HS Ranking PG HS Ranking
# of Seasons
Record
Win. %
Avg. NCAAT Wins/Season
Top 10
9—Vaughn (4), Felton (2), Lawson (3)
268-50
84.3
3.22
11-25
3—Pritchard, Miles (2)
93-17
84.5
3.33
26-50
5—A. Jordan (3), Boschee, Frasor
129-38
77.2
2.40
51+
4—S. Barry, Robertson, Hinrich (2)
104-33
75.9
1.00
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 19
2009–2010 Tar Heels
2. Can Deon Thompson, fifth option as a junior, develop into a go-to scorer as a senior, or will it be Ed Davis?
Table 7: Thompson and Davis with and without Hansbrough on the Court Min.
Pts /40
FG%
with Hansbrough
588.0
14.9
46.8
49.6
33.6
16.5
19.3
2.2
122.1
without Hansbrough
356.0
20.4
52.4
54.9
34.2
19.2
23.5
1.8
119.8
with Hansbrough
327.1
14.8
57.5
57.6
43.7
14.0
16.8
1.6
126.0
without Hansbrough
389.6
13.6
47.1
50.2
55.8
15.5
16.6
2.8
112.6
TS%
FTA Rate
Usage Rate
% Shots
TO /40
Team Off. Eff.
Deon Thompson
Ed Davis
As most Carolina fans probably recall, Deon Thompson began the 2008–09 season as an aggressive and assertive post-scoring option. In the season’s first two games (vs. Penn and Kentucky), Thompson scored 37 points on 63% (17-27) shooting from the field. Not coincidentally, you might also remember that Tyler Hansbrough missed both of those games while recovering from his shin injury. Once Hansbrough returned, he resumed his role of post alpha dog, relegating Thompson to a more secondary offensive mindset. While Deon still had some big games and important hoops, he wasn’t the same player upon Hansbrough’s reinsertion into the lineup.
Although they started together in the frontcourt for two seasons, Thompson and Hansbrough never really mastered the concept of sharing the post. Both players required the ball to be successful, and neither did much to make his teammates better from a passing perspective. As such, a synergistic, complementary relationship in the paint never materialized. Now that Hansbrough is playing in the NBA, Carolina’s alpha-dog role is Thompson’s for the taking. And, based on the evidence provided in Table 7, he seems ready to embrace that opportunity. As seen in the table, Thompson’s scoring skyrocketed from 14.9 points per 40 minutes with Hansbrough on the court to 20.4 with him on the bench. When Hansbrough sat, Thompson shot much more frequently (23.5% of UNC’s shots vs. 19.3%), but also much more efficiently (FG% of 52.4% vs. 46.8%). He also turned the ball over less despite touching it more. The only thing he didn’t do better without Hansbrough on the court was draw fouls— his FTA Rate stayed fairly constant across his minutes with and without “Psycho T.” Ed Davis’s numbers with and without Hansbrough were in stark contrast Thompson’s. His scoring dropped without Hansbrough on the court, his turnover rate exploded, and his efficiency plummeted. While, unlike Thompson, Davis didn’t shoot more frequently in his minutes without Hansbrough, he did draw significantly more fouls. Based on the data presented in Table 7, it seemed as if Davis and Hansbrough had a much more symbiotic on-court relationship than Thompson and Hansbrough. Davis, as a freshman, was more of a garbage man than Thompson—content to score off offensive boards and drive-and-dishes. His game suffered less from the reduced touches associated with playing alongside Hansbrough, and benefited more from the attention Hansbrough commanded. Table 8 confirms the Hansbrough-Davis chemistry, as the combo combined for significantly more big-to-big assists per-minute than any other Carolina post duo. In general, Table 8: Post-Post Chemistry Report Post-Post Pair
As Deon Thompson proved in ’09, he has the potential to be a primary scoring option in the post. 20 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Shared Minutes
Shared Assists
Shared Assists/40
Off. Eff.
Davis-Hansbrough
327.1
13
1.59
126.0
Thompson-Hansbrough
588.0
13
0.88
122.1
Thompson-Davis
295.0
6
0.81
120.2
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
possible for a point guard with Drew II’s high school pedigree to lead a Williams-coached team to the Final Four.
Rebuilding or Reloading?
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Ed Davis, already a dominant rebounder and shot-blocker, will need to increase his scoring rate in 2010.
hook (14-29 hooks in ’09). The good news is that Thompson did make strides last season in the area of attacking the hoop. He doubled his rate of dunks last season (from 0.6 per 40 minutes in 2007–08 to 1.2 2008–09), and increased his close (0–5 feet) field goal attempts from 4.3 per 40 minutes to 5.8. He was clearly more explosive as a junior than he was as a sophomore and another offseason of working with Jonas Sahratian should make Deon an even more effective finisher as a senior. Ed Davis, on the other hand, is like a Bizarro Deon Thompson. The vast majority of his offense comes on lay-ups and dunks, he draws fouls at an outstanding clip, and he showed virtually no midrange game in 2009. A staggering 87% of his field-goal attempts were dunks, lay-ups, or jump hooks. To evolve into Carolina’s go-to guy, Ed must develop some semblance of a midrange game. He must also begin to finish better around the rim. Davis’s close FG% was only 59.8%, including 44.1% on non-dunk close attempts. Both Hansbrough (66.4%) and Thompson (63.8%) finished much better around the rim than Davis. Brandan Wright, who made 153-181 close shots in 2006–07 (84.5%), was in a different stratosphere as a close finisher, and Heels fans are hopeful that John Henson—whose length and athleticism are reminiscent of Wright’s—can be that kind of otherworldly finisher too. Based on what we learned last season with Hansbrough on the bench, expect Thompson to blossom into the role of primary paint-scoring option. But if Davis adds strength, diversifies his repertoire of post moves, and starts converting his close attempts more consistently (a function of the added strength), he’ll also see a significant increase in his scoring rate. Factor in Henson, who should immediately be UNC’s best finisher, and Zeller—who showcased a jump hook with either hand, midrange touch, a turnaround jumper, deft upand-under footwork, and a silky free-throw stroke in limited minutes—and Carolina should have among the deepest and most versatile collections of post-scoring options in the country (before even considering the Wear twins).
UNC’s posts were working better in tandem by the end of the season (especially in high-low sets). This is a trend that will hopefully continue into 2009–10. If Thompson is going to evolve into a premier primary option in the post, he’ll need to attack the rim more and draw fouls at a higher rate. The junior version of Thompson scored too inefficiently to be a top option on an elite offensive team. Of Carolina’s 30 rotation post players since 1980, Deon ranks 24th in career FTA Rate (and the Table 9: How Thompson and Davis Score six below him—Ndiaye, Bersticker, Chilcutt, Wolf, Deon Thompson Popson, and Zwikker—were all more perimeter Shot Type FG-FGA (FG%) %FGA oriented, and none was a top offensive option at Dunks 29-33 (87.9) 9.9 Lay-ups 59-105 (56.2) 31.5 UNC). Thompson’s favorite offensive move—the Hook shots 14-29 (48.3) 8.7 turnaround jumper—is pretty when it’s dropping. Turnaround jumpers 26-78 (33.3) 23.4 But it also has the double whammy of not drawing Leaners 4-11 (36.4) 3.3 contact and being low percentage: Deon made just Face-up jumpers 9-18 (50.0) 5.4 33% of them last year (26-78), and 34% in the past Mid-range catch-and-shoot 18-48 (37.5) 14.4 Mid-range off-the-dribble 4-7 (57.1) 2.1 two seasons (44-131). Thompson is more effective 2nd chance/put-backs 23-39 (59.0) 11.7 when facing up (he hit 9-18 face-up jumpers last And-1’s 9-11 (81.8) 3.3 season) or backing his defender deep for a jump
Ed Davis FG-FGA (FG%)
%FGA
31-34 (91.2)
17.8
30-68 (44.1)
35.6
29-64 (45.3)
33.5
0-0 (–)
0.0
5-13 (38.5)
6.8
1-5 (20.0)
2.6
2-5 (40.0)
2.6
0-0 (–)
0.0
20-44 (45.5)
23.0
4-9 (44.4)
4.7
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 21
2009–2010 Tar Heels
3. So what about that freshman class, how will the rotation shake out? There are a few near-certainties in Roy Williams’s 2009–10 rotation: Marcus Ginyard will get 25–30 minutes per game divided between the 2 and the 3; Thompson and Davis will combine for about 50 minutes in the post; it’s also a safe bet that Larry Drew II will begin the season as the starting point guard and, assuming the development projected earlier in this article, will earn 25 minutes per game. While four of the starting slots are ostensibly locked up (at least to begin the season), the fifth remains wide open. Ginyard’s flexibility (he’s started at both the 2 and the 3 in his Carolina career) gives Williams some options. If Ginyard starts at the 3, freshmen Dexter Strickland and Leslie McDonald will battle for the vacant shooting guard spot (possibly joined by Justin Watts if he’s made substantial off-season strides). If Ginyard moves to the starting 2, redshirt junior Will Graves and freshman John Henson will be candidates to fill the vacant small forward hole. So let’s examine the pros and cons of each potential starter:
to covering major-college wings. Despite his lack of bulk and strength, Henson is an instant impact 4. As a 3, the waters get much murkier.
Leslie McDonald Why he might start: The most complete and well-rounded of UNC’s freshmen, McDonald has a college-ready body and game to match. McDonald and Ginyard would combine to give Roy Williams a pair of physical, athletic, defensive wings to begin games. His ball-handling is solid, and he’d provide a capable second option for triggering the Carolina transition game. Why he might not start: His perimeter game is still a mystery. McDonald’s midrange game was a strength at the prep level, but he’ll have to learn how to create those opportunities against bigger, more athletic defenders. A capable three-point shooter, McDonald will again have to prove he can knock down threes against college defenses. Like all freshmen, McDonald will be facing a difficult task as he learns the nuances and subtleties of Carolina’s defensive schemes.
Will Graves Why he might start: For a team in desperate need of a three-point marksman, Graves has the best pedigree and proven track record from behind the arc. In two collegiate seasons, he’s knocked down 36.7% of his trifectas (29-79). Entering his fourth year in the program, Graves also has a big head start on the freshmen in terms of understanding the system (especially defensively). Why he might not start: Returning from a suspension and prone to questionable on-court decisions, Graves might be hard-pressed to avoid Roy Williams’s doghouse. Even prior to the suspension, Graves’s play in ACC games was rapidly losing him court time in ’09 (33.3 FG%, 22.2 3Pt%, one assist, and 10 turnovers in 50 ACC minutes).
Why he might start: A top-five talent and freakish athletic specimen, Henson might just be too talented to not crack the starting lineup. As a starting 3, he’d be a match-up nightmare—posting up smaller wings, and dominating in transition and on the offensive glass. His defensive length will allow him to compensate for some freshman errors (late rotations, being a step out of position, etc.) and minimize his learning curve as a defender. Why he might not start: As a freshman, Henson simply may not be ready to be a starting wing on the collegiate level. His outside shot is a huge question mark, he’s a liability at the free-throw line, and his handle is not yet tight enough for an ACC wing. It is also uncertain how well Henson would adjust
22 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Who will step up to replace the starting backcourt of Ty Lawson and Wayne Ellington?
Photo: Andy Lyons/Getty Images
John Henson
Rebuilding or Reloading? Dexter Strickland Why he might start: Strickland immediately becomes the most explosive and creative finisher in Carolina’s backcourt mix. A true combo guard, Strickland appears most capable of helping Drew II with some of the play-making and ballhandling responsibilities (although steady senior Ginyard will be a huge help here too, regardless of who wins the fifth starting spot). From a primary and secondary break perspective, Strickland is probably the best fit to win the starting job since he has plus handling, creating, and finishing skills in transition. Why he might not start: To start the season, Strickland will almost certainly assume the role of backup point guard. And while that doesn’t preclude him from starting at shooting guard (see Shammond Williams in ’98 and Melvin Scott in ’04), that might be more responsibility than Roy Williams wants to heap on his plate. Needing to add strength, Strickland is, as a freshman, probably best suited to defend collegiate point guards. A Drew II-Strickland backcourt would likely struggle defensively against physical guards. Like McDonald, how Strickland’s perimeter game will translate to college is a huge unknown. Whoever can display some perimeter consistency early in the season will have a huge advantage in earning wing playing time for the 2009–10 Heels. Only in 2006—with Frasor, Thomas, Ginyard, Miller, Terry, and Green fighting for starting roles and available minutes—has the backcourt playing-time situation been so murky entering the season for a Roy Williams UNC team. Even though Leslie McDonald is the lowest rated of Carolina’s incoming recruits, his all-around game and college-ready body could very well earn him a starting role in 2009–10. Our pre-season prediction for minutes: PG: Drew II (25), Strickland (15) SG: McDonald (21), Ginyard (12), Strickland (5), Watts (2) SF: Ginyard (18), Henson (12), Graves (10) PF: Thompson (25), Henson (8), T. Wear (3), D. Wear (2), Davis (2) C: Davis (23), Zeller (17) Total Minutes: Ginyard (30), Thompson (25), Davis (25), Drew II (25), McDonald (21), Henson (20), Strickland (20), Zeller (17), Graves (10), T. Wear (3), D. Wear (2), Watts (2) Then again, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see a hotshooting Will Graves win the starting spot alongside Ginyard, and earn 20-plus minutes per game with McDonald dropping down to around ten. Or, to see Dexter Strickland prove too explosive and talented to not start, and instantly warrant 25-plus minutes split between the guard spots. The beauty is, in true Roy Williams fashion, this question won’t be settled until mid-October practice.
Although not an ideal situation for Williams, it is a near certainly that Dexter Strickland will log some minutes at both the 1 and the 2 in 2009–10. How John Henson’s minutes will be divided between positions will be interesting to track also. With the frontcourt depth that Carolina has, it seems Henson will log some minutes at both the 3 and the 4. While Coach Williams has used freshmen at multiple positions in the past, it has usually been at the 2/3 (like Ellington) or 4/5 (like Thompson and Marvin Williams). He has shown reluctance in using them both in the post and on the wing—Green and Terry didn’t log heavy minutes at the 4 until they were upperclassmen—since those positions are so distinctly different in Carolina’s system, especially in terms of secondary break responsibilities. Still, Henson seems too talented to keep off the floor. Although his learning curve may be lengthened while learning two positions, Henson has the physical tools to overcome some mental miscues. Williams will also likely use more opponent-specific rotations and match-ups than with his past Carolina teams. In games where Henson matches up favorably on the wing (like, perhaps, against bigger opposing 3s like Kyle Singler, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Chris Singleton), his minutes at the 3 will increase, cutting into the time for McDonald and Graves, and creating more minutes for Zeller. In games where the opposing 3 is a smaller, quicker match-up, Henson might spend more time in the paint, with McDonald and Strickland seeing more minutes, and Zeller’s minutes being squeezed.
4. But it’s not really about who starts games, it’s about who finishes them. Who will Carolina turn to in the clutch in 2009–10? As mentioned in the beginning of the article, Carolina loses 75% of its scoring production from last season’s roster. While that sounds like a lot (and is), it pales in comparison to the 88% of its clutch scoring production that won’t be returning in 2009–10. Clutch situations are defined as the last five minutes and overtime of games in which the margin is less than or equal to seven points. After 75 clutch minutes in 2007–08, the 2009 champions—a more dominant squad—had just 50 clutch minutes, including zero in the NCAA Tournament—only LSU got within single digits of the Heels (at 74–65) within the final five minutes of an NCAAT game. As seen in Table 10, Ty Lawson was Carolina’s star performer during close-and-late situations in 2009, scoring or assisting on nearly half (14 of 29) of UNC’s clutch hoops. And, in late-game, late-in-the-shot-clock situations, the ball was almost invariably in Lawson’s hands to make a play (either for himself or others). Not surprisingly, the Big 4 of
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 23
2009–2010 Tar Heels Table 10: Clutch Statistics (Close and Late)
One way to partially circumvent this problem is by using frequent Hansbrough 48.2 4-14 11-15 0-1 19 5-7 1 3 2 0 7 14.3 52 Ellington 46.7 8-24 5-5 3-13 24 2-5 4 3 0 0 4 13.1 63 offense-for-defense substiGreen 46.0 4-13 11-15 2-9 21 2-4 3 3 3 1 4 19.6 84 tutions. While Davis and Lawson 40.0 8-16 16-19 5-7 37 2-2 6 3 2 1 5 42.3 137 Thompson (and possibly Thompson 22.5 2-4 3-3 0-0 7 2-2 1 1 0 1 5 14.1 83 Henson) might leave the Frasor 19.4 0-0 2-4 0-0 2 1-3 1 0 1 0 2 13.0 140 floor in certain late-game Davis 15.0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0-4 0 0 0 1 2 6.4 32 Graves 8.0 2-5 0-0 1-4 5 2-2 0 0 0 0 3 offensive situations, they Drew II 1.9 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 will surely return for defenZeller 1.5 1-1 0-0 0-0 2 2-1 0 0 0 0 0 sive possessions. Team 50.0 29-78 48-61 11-34 117 24-32 16 13 8 4 32 Although Williams Most-Used Clutch Lineups Minutes +/has a penchant for going Lawson-Ellington-Green-Thompson-Hansbrough 16.4 39-39 small late, the composition Lawson-Frasor-Ellington-Green-Hansbrough 6.3 12-13 Lawson-Ellington-Green-Hansbrough-Davis 6.0 16-11 of this roster (both talLawson-Ellington-Graves-Green-Hansbrough 5.6 21-7 ent- and depth-wise) may All other lineups 15.7 29-34 force a more traditional 1. Clutch Index compares a player’s per-minute efficiency in clutch minutes to his per-minute efficiency in all minutes. A Clutch Index of 110 indicates that a player is 10% more effective in close-and-late situations. A Clutch Index of 90 indicates that a player is 10% less effective in close-and-late situations. crunch-time lineup. Davis and Thompson will be too Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, and Green combined to valuable to sit on either end, and Carolina might just have to score 101 of Carolina’s 117 clutch points (86%). The leading live with some missed foul shots down the stretch, provided returning clutch scorer is Deon Thompson with seven closethat the bigs haven’t improved dramatically from the stripe and-late points. during the offseason. Ginyard, of course, will be a fixture in So, clearly a new crop of go-to guys in the clutch must any close-and-late lineup. Drew II, as Carolina’s only pure be cultivated in Chapel Hill. The likely candidates are post point, probably will be too, unless Dexter Strickland proves players Thompson and Davis, although this presents a couple to be far less turnover prone than the typical freshman combo of problems: Neither player can reliably create his own shot guard. As for that final lineup spot, expect Strickland to off the dribble, nor consistently knock down foul shots. Of emerge as a credible crunch-time threat. No Heel is better course, it is possible to create shots via offensive rebounding suited to create off the dribble and break down defenders and second-chance opportunities, and, frankly, this might be with the bounce. If Strickland’s reputed ability to get into Carolina’s most effective form of late-game offense. Davis, the paint at will comes to fruition at the collegiate level, he Henson, and Ginyard all figure to be extremely effective on adds a much-needed dimension to Carolina’s half-court and the offensive glass, and few things are more deflating to an late-game offense. While Davis and Thompson will still get opponent than playing 30 seconds of solid defense, forcing a plenty of crunch-time post touches, and Ginyard will chip in contested miss, then allowing an easy second-chance basket. with offensive rebounds and clutch free throws (he made 15Roy Williams has also shown a proclivity for going small 20 close-and-late free-throws in 2007 and 2008), Strickland down the stretch of close games. Danny Green and Reyshawn might develop into Carolina’s X-factor—the guy who has the Terry combined to play about half of the team’s clutch minball in his hands to begin any “must score” possession. utes at the 4 between 2007 and 2009. The obvious benefits to these small lineups are improved ball-handling and foul 5. Carolina lost 70% of its production, but added some talented freshmen. No shooting if protecting a late lead, and improved three-point team can improve after losing a core of shooting, and transition and defensive pressure capability Hansbrough/Lawson/Ellington/Green. when mounting a late comeback. In 2010, Will Graves or But, based on historical trends, how much even Marcus Ginyard might emerge as the crunch-time 4 can we expect to see UNC drop off in (joining Drew II, Strickland, and McDonald-Ginyard on the 2009–10? court). Tyler Zeller might also warrant clutch minutes due to his undisputed title of “Best Free-throw Shooting Carolina Since 1984 (the first year in which top-100 high school Big.” Of course, playing a Graves or Ginyard-Zeller frontrecruiting rankings are available), the average Carolina court means that three of UNC’s best players—Thompson, team has returned 62.6% of its production (defined as Davis, and Henson—are finishing close games on the bench. the percentage of total points, rebounds, and assists Player
Min.
FG-A
FT-A
3Pt-A
24 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Pts.
ORDR
Asst.
TO
St.
Bl.
PF
PER
Clutch Index1
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
Rebuilding or Reloading? Table 11: Percentage of Returning returning)—more than UNC Production: 1984–2010 twice as much as the % Returning Change in Season Prod. Net Eff. 30.1% the 2009–10 team Highest returns. Additionally, 2005 98.3 +13.7 the average UNC team 2004 96.4 +8.6 from 1984–2010 has 1986 92.4 +12.2 fortified its roster with 1989 90.9 +0.9 189 “recruit points” (the 1993 85.6 +13.4 Lowest #1 player in a class earns 2006 13.3 -8.5 100 “recruit points”, #2 2010 30.1 ?? earns 99, …, #100 earns 2003 37.1 +10.5 1)—the equivalent of 1999 39.1 -14.0 two top-ten or three top1996 39.9 -4.8 40 recruits per season. In 2010, Carolina will add nearly double that amount with 357 recruit points. Historically, both of the 2010 numbers are extreme—only the 2006 team returned less production (13.3%), and just the 1991 (415) and 2007 (407) squads added more recruit points. It’s fairly intuitive that these two forces should work in opposite directions when projecting Carolina’s level of success in 2010: Losing productive players is bad, but adding highly-ranked prospects is good. So which effect dominates? And how might we use the past to predict the future? To answer these questions, let’s conduct a straightforward linear regression analysis. Our dependent variable is change in net efficiency. For example, the 2009 Tar Heels improved their net efficiency from +21.0 (in 2008) to +23.5—a change of +2.5. Our two independent variables are the ones discussed in the preceding paragraph: percent of returning production (%RetProd) and incoming recruit points (Recruit). Using UNC data from 1984–2009, the following regression equation can be estimated: Change in Net Efficiency = -25.2 + 0.3365 ✕ %RetProd + 0.0215 ✕ Recruit (As a statistical aside, both independent variables are statistically significant at a 95% level of confidence, and the coefficient of determination for this regression is 0.53—meaning that 53% of the change in net efficiency can be attributed to percent returning production and incoming recruiting points—the other 47% is due to omitted variables, for example, player development, and random error/noise.) Plugging in the 2010 numbers (30.1 %RetProd and 357 Recruit), the model estimates a loss in net efficiency of 7.4 points—from +23.5 to +16.1. What does that kind of reduction in net efficiency mean for a team’s won-loss record? Using ACC data from 1980–2009, the following regression equation can be estimated: Winning % = 0.487 + 0.017 x Eff. Margin
So, based on this strong relationship between winning percentage and efficiency margin (an adjusted R-squared of 0.86, where an R-squared of 1.0 indicates a perfect correlation), we can project Carolina’s winning percentage to drop to 76.1% next season. Depending on how many postseason games the ’10 Tar Heels play (in addition to 31 regular season contests), this translates to a record in the neighborhood of 29–9 (76.3%). History dictates that rational fans should set their expectations in line with these predictions. Of course, Roy Williams is the type of coach capable of exceeding expectations. This model predicted his 2006 Carolina team to finish with a winning percentage of 64.9% (or about 20–11). The ’06 Heels actually posted a 74.2% mark (23–8)—a full three games above expectations over the course of the 31game campaign.
Marcus Ginyard will need to increase his offensive production as a senior while still doing the little things. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 25
2009–2010 Tar Heels Table 12: Usage vs. Efficiency for Carolina Wings— Junior-to-Senior Trends from 1980 to 2009 %Shots
Pts/40
3Pt%
TS%
JR-SR Increase in Usage1 JR
19.3
15.8
43.2
60.3
SR
24.6
19.3
39.4
59.5
JR-SR No Change in Usage2 JR
17.9
13.5
37.7
56.6
SR
17.5
12.3
36.8
53.6
JR-SR Decrease in Usage3 JR
22.8
17.5
36.8
56.4
SR
17.3
13.2
35.2
55.8
1. This category includes 10 players (Bucknall, Calabria, Capel, Davis, Fox, Noel, Okulaja, R. Smith, Sh. Williams, Wood). The average returning production for these players’ teams was 52.9%. 2. This category includes 11 players (Doherty, Frasor, Green, Hale, Hunter, Miller, Owens, Peterson, Rodl, Scott, D. Williams). The average returning production for these players’ teams was 73.3%. 3. This category includes 5 players (Madden, Manuel, Pepper, Reese, Terry). The average returning production for these players’ teams was 73.7%
6. Can Marcus Ginyard step up as a scorer in his senior season? Two memorable recent examples of Carolina glue guys stepping up as scorers (and leaders) in their senior years are Ademola Okulaja in 1999 and David Noel in 2006. As juniors, both players were defensive-minded, do-the-little-things wings similar to the 2008 version of Ginyard. After massive personnel losses comparable to the 70% of production that Carolina lost after 2009 (61% of production lost after 1998, 87% lost after 2005), Okulaja and Noel helped fill the void by dramatically increasing their scoring rates and scoring efficiency. But how common is this in the annals of Carolina basketball? And should UNC fans expect a similar jump in production from Marcus Ginyard in 2010? Since 1980, 26 four-year wings have played at UNC. These players can be separated into three groups: 1. Those whose offensive role (as measured by %Shots, the percentage of the team’s shots they attempted during their minutes on the floor) significantly increased between their junior and senior seasons (10 players— Bucknall, Calabria, Capel, Davis, Fox, Noel, Okulaja, R. Smith, Sh. Williams, Wood) 2. Those whose offensive role stayed about the same between their junior and senior seasons (11 players—Doherty, Frasor, Green, Hale, Hunter, Miller, Owens, Peterson, Rodl, Scott, D. Williams) 3. Those whose offensive role significantly decreased between their junior and senior seasons (5 players—Madden, Manuel, Pepper, Reese, Terry). As might be expected, the players whose offensive roles increased were returning to teams which lost significantly more production (47%) than those whose roles stayed the same (27%) or decreased (26%). Table 12 summarizes the usage versus efficiency tradeoff for each of these three groups of Carolina wings. Despite dramatic junior-to-senior changes in usage across these three
26 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
groups, the changes in scoring efficiency (TS%) stayed fairly constant. Intuitively, one might expect a large increase in a player’s offensive role to be associated with a decrease in his scoring efficiency—he’ll generally be expected to take some tougher shots, create more offense late in the shot clock, etc. This is not the case, however, at Carolina, which is likely a testament to the high level of coaching associated with the program. Dean Smith, Bill Guthridge, and Williams all placed a premium on shot selection and understanding what a good shot was (and how that might differ across players). The Carolina wings who increased their offensive role as seniors were generally players who were capable of handling more shots without sacrificing their scoring efficiency. As long as Roy Williams is in charge, the most important take-home message when considering Ginyard’s offensive role as a senior is this: If he’s able to efficiently contribute more as a scorer, he will; if not, he’ll continue in his role as a complementary offensive option, while the available shots are allocated to more efficient scoring options. Of course, that answer isn’t very satisfying as it relates to the initial question. To gain more insight into Ginyard’s chances of simultaneously increasing both his usage and efficiency as a scorer, let’s again consider the career progressions of Okulaja and Noel (see Table 13). As seen, Noel increased his senior-year usage (%Shot) by 79%, Okulaja by 45%. These are the two largest junior-to-senior usage increases of any Carolina wing from 1980–2009 (followed by R. Smith at 41%, Capel at 39%, and Calabria at 36%). Despite the large spike in shooting rate, Noel and Okulaja made significant senior-year improvements in scoring efficiency (Noel’s TS% rose by 4%, Okulaja’s by 14%). Both players also became much better three-point marksmen as seniors. While Noel and Okulaja are senior-year success stories, Capel and Calabria both had dramatic decreases in scoring efficiency Table 13: Career Scoring Trends Pts/40
%Shots
3Pt%
3PtA Rate
TS%
Ademola Okulaja 1996 (FR)
10.0
10.2
48.8
33.6
64.2
1997 (SO)
10.0
14.2
36.0
45.7
51.0
1998 (JR)
10.5
14.9
25.8
37.1
49.6
1999 (SR)
16.5
21.6
43.1
39.0
56.7
David Noel 2003 (FR)
10.8
14.8
28.1
34.3
55.5
2004 (SO)
9.7
11.2
16.7
13.5
58.9
2005 (JR)
8.4
10.9
35.0
19.2
57.9
2006 (SR)
15.0
19.5
42.4
31.0
60.4
Marcus Ginyard 2006 (FR)
12.8
20.0
24.4
23.8
48.3
2007 (SO)
9.2
11.5
27.3
9.8
55.0
2008 (JR)
9.2
12.5
40.0
13.5
50.5
2010 (SR) Projected
13.3
17.0
35.7
22.5
52.8
Rebuilding or Reloading? Table 14: Frontcourt (Calabria’s TS% dropped Scoring—1980-2009 by 14%, Capel’s by 8%) and %FrontW-L Season court Record three-point accuracy after Highest assuming larger scoring roles 2005 50.5 33-4 as seniors. Steve Bucknall is 2002 50.3 8-20 another Tar Heel wing whose 2007 48.7 31-7 offensive game blossomed as a 1995 48.4 28-6 senior—especially from behind 1985 47.0 27-9 Lowest the arc, as he made 62 threes 1980 34.0 21-8 in his final campaign after only 2003 36.5 19-16 nine as a junior. 1996 37.7 21-11 If Ginyard is going to fol1983 39.6 28-8 low in the footsteps of Okulaja, 1994 39.6 28-7 Average: 43.5% Noel, and Bucknall, he too will have to take (and make) significantly more triples as a senior. As Carolina has lost 94% of its three-point production from 2009, the opportunity is certainly available for Ginyard to step up from behind the arc. And, unlike Okulaja and Noel, Ginyard has actually been a mid-level usage player at some point prior to his senior season. As a freshman in 2006, Ginyard had a %Shots of 20%—neither Okulaja nor Noel had even cracked the 15% mark before their breakout years. If Ginyard is going to approach the 20% mark again, he’ll need to do so more efficiently than he did as a freshman. Chances are he will. As the projections in Table 13 show, Tip-off expects Ginyard to shoot more often and score more efficiently as a senior. However, don’t expect his senior-year offensive explosion to be quite as dramatic as those of Okulaja or Noel—both of which were historically uncommon for a Carolina senior.
7. Carolina’s offense projects to be frontcourt dominated in 2010. Will this lack of balance be problematic? Not really, and, if anything, the emphasis on paint scoring is generally a good thing in the Dean Smith-Roy Williams system of offensive basketball. For the sake of this analysis, a team’s small forward is considered part of backcourt/ wing scoring. Thus, a perfectly balanced team would get 40% of its scoring output from the frontcourt (power forward and center spots) and the remaining 60% from the backcourt/wings. Since 1980, UNC has gotten 43.5% of its scoring from the frontcourt—not surprising given the system’s emphasis on attacking in the paint. In the six years of the Roy Williams era, that number has climbed to 45.9% (and it’s 46.8% from 2005–2009). Carolina’s last four national champs have also averaged 46.8% of their scoring from the frontcourt. Table 14 lists the UNC teams since 1980 with the highest and lowest percentage of frontcourt offensive production.
The correlation coefficient between efficiency margin and percent of frontcourt production is 0.19—indicating a weak positive relationship (UNC teams whose frontcourts score more have higher efficiency margins). When removing the 2002 outlier—which we’ve convinced ourselves never happened—the correlation coefficient climbs to a more robust 0.51. At any rate, getting an abnormally high percentage of offensive production from the frontcourt is usually a good sign for a Roy Williams team. Based on projections, the 2010 squad should get very close to 50% of its scoring from the post position, a mark reached by only two of the past 30 Carolina teams. While this doesn’t guarantee success, it will provide the backcourt more room to operate and more open perimeter looks. How well the guards convert these opportunities will go a long way in determining the success of the 2009–10 Heels. But rest assured, there’s really no such thing as “too much post scoring” in a Roy Williams system.
8. Can Carolina win big without the presence of a dominating scorer? While Deon Thompson or Ed Davis might emerge as a 17–18 points-per-game guy in 2010, it’s more likely that UNC’s leading scorer will average in the 13–15 range. Based on Tip-Off’s projections, we expect Thompson to lead the way with an average of 14.1 per game—or 16.9% of Carolina’s 83.6. If these projections are close to approximating reality, it would be only the fourth time since 1980 that UNC’s top point producer did not account for at least 18% of the team’s scoring. But fear not, Tar Heel fans, there are plenty of ways to win big at the collegiate level. And that includes with a dominating scoring threat (like Hansbrough in 2008 or Jamison in 1998) or without one (like the ’93 or ’87 Heels). In fact, there is virtually no correlation at all (correlation coefficient of -0.02) between UNC’s efficiency margin and its percentage of points Table 15: Percentage of Points Scored produced by the top by Team’s Leading Scorer—1980-2009 scorer. On average, W-L Season %Points Record Carolina’s top guy Highest accounts for 22.2% 2001 26.4 (Forte) 26-7 of the team’s points. 1998 26.4 (Jamison) 34-4 This figure is similar 1980 25.9 (Wood) 21-8 to the average among 1992 25.7 (Davis) 23-10 the 40 Final Four 2008 25.5 (Hansbrough) 36-3 Lowest teams from this de1994 15.9 (Montross) 28-7 cade (21.2%) and the 1989 16.3 (Madden) 29-8 12 non-UNC Final 1987 17.9 (K. Smith) 32-4 Four teams from the 1993 18.3 (Montross) 34-4 ACC between 1980 2002 19.2 (Capel) 8-20 Average: 22.2% and 1999 (23.2%).
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 27
2009–2010 Tar Heels The vast majority of teams (both good and bad) get 18–26% of their points from their top scorer. But a team can still be wildly successful outside this range in either direction. Three of the past four national champions have had extraordinarily balanced scoring attacks (Kansas ’08 with 15.8%, Florida ’07 with 16.6%, and Florida ’06 with 18.1%). Teams have also recently made deep postseason runs on the back of a single superstar—most notably in 2003 when the Final Four included champion Syracuse (27.9% of points scored by Carmelo Anthony) as well as Marquette (27.5% scored by Dwyane Wade). Carolina fans need not hope for a legitimate big-time scorer to surface in 2010 and replace Tyler Hansbrough. They only need to hope that enough credible scoring threats emerge to give the offense the type of balance displayed by recent champions Kansas and Florida.
9. Carolina loses plenty of experience, but adds some players with impressive physical tools. How will these two competing effects impact the team’s defense in 2010?
28 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Tyler Zeller can hit his jump hook with either hand and will help the Heels dominate in the paint. Carolina should be able to compensate for the loss of experience on the defensive end. Corey Baker’s piece on page 73 goes in-depth into how Carolina’s defense might be expected to perform in 2010.
10. This figures to be a much poorer perimeter shooting team than last season. The free-throw percentage won’t be nearly as good either. How much will that impact UNC’s offensive efficiency? You might be wondering how we could get so deep into the article without talking in detail about perimeter shooting— arguably the biggest question mark (along with point guard play) facing the 2010 Tar Heels. It turns out that Corey Baker tackles this topic in detail starting on page 77. Flip ahead to see what he concludes. MSP Adrian Atkinson is the editor of Tar Heel Tip-Off. A 1999 University of Richmond graduate and lifelong Tar Heel fan, he is an environmental economist who lives in Raleigh with his wife Katya.
Photo: Joe Murphy/Getty Images
Experience matters in Roy Williams’s system—especially on the defensive end. To prove this point, let’s examine a group consisting of the seven core players in the classes of 2009 and 2010 (Ellington, Frasor, Ginyard, Green, Hansbrough, Lawson, and Thompson). As freshmen, this group had a cumulative Stop% of 55.0%. This equates to a defensive efficiency of 100.1, which would have placed 147th in the country last season. As sophomores, the cumulative Stop% increased to 59.4% (equivalent DE of 90.4, 18th in the country). By their junior seasons, this core group of players had increased their cumulative Stop% to 61.5% (equivalent DE of 85.8, fourth in the country). By studying how a baseline group of players statistically improves over time, we can help quantify what every coach in America knows—experience matters on defense. But natural talent and physical gifts are also important. Brandan Wright’s freshman-year Stop% was 59.9%. Ed Davis’s was 63.1%. Both numbers are significantly higher than those in the baseline group defined above. Wright and Davis both made as many mental mistakes and inexperienced errors as the players in the baseline group, but each had the physical tools (specifically length) to compensate for some of their youthful mistakes. In 2010, Carolina welcomes John Henson—another freshman who possesses freakish natural gifts. Dexter Strickland and Leslie McDonald also come in with solid defensive tools, specifically lateral quickness. Between the expected year-to-year defensive improvements of Ginyard, Thompson, Drew II, Davis, Graves, and Zeller, and the natural defensive tools provided by the freshman class,
2008–2009 UNC TEAM STATISTICS G
W-L
SOS*
Pace
Net Eff. Off. Eff.
Def. Eff.
eFG%
FTA Rate
OR % DR %
TO%
2 Pt. %
3Pt. %
FT%
TS%
A:TO
.730
75.2
+23.3
118.9
95.6
53.3
39.2
39.2 67.8
16.3 51.5
38.7
75.2 57.3
1.45
ALL GAMES
UNC
38
34-4
Opp.
38
4-34
*
75.2
-23.3
95.6
118.9
46.6
25.4
32.2 60.8
20.9 44.7
33.7
69.4 49.4
NOVEMBER
UNC
7
7-0
.459
77.0
+38.2
124.7
86.5
58.0
36.3
39.1 72.0
15.1 55.7
42.4
69.5 60.3
Opp.
7
0-7
*
77.0
-38.2
86.5
124.7
44.2
26.0
28.0 60.9
25.0 40.9
32.9
UNC
6
6-0
.649
78.0
+28.8
117.5
88.7
54.4
44.0
38.8 66.2
17.6 56.4
Opp.
6
0-6
*
78.0
-28.8
88.7
117.5
45.9
30.0
33.8 61.2
UNC
8
6-2
.795
77.0
+17.8
113.7
95.9
50.6
39.6
Opp.
8
2-6
*
77.0
-17.8
95.9
113.7
45.2
UNC
7
6-1
.815
74.3
+16.1
118.2
102.1
Opp.
7
1-6
*
74.3
-16.1
102.1
UNC
10
9-1
.856
71.4
+19.1
Opp.
10
1-9
*
71.4
UNC
18
14-4
.833
Opp.
18
4-14
*
UNC
20
20-0
Opp.
20
UNC
St. %
Bl.%
A 3PA /FGM /FGA
11.2 11.9
56.8
27.2
0.86
9.2
9.1
51.1
33.0
1.82
14.7 15.2
59.8
29.0
71.9 47.7
0.74
9.6
9.1
60.8
38.7
32.4
77.2 59.0
1.43
13.1 13.0
61.0
26.2
25.4 46.1
30.1
64.6 48.6
0.71
9.3
8.3
53.5
24.7
41.3 66.7
18.5 49.2
36.1
78.3 55.6
1.20
7.6
13.5
56.6
27.5
26.4
33.3 58.7
17.4 42.8
33.3
71.5 48.6
0.85
10.5 10.6
42.6
33.6
53.0
32.5
41.9 67.6
17.8 50.3
40.0
81.3 57.4
1.33
10.5
7.3
55.8
28.3
118.2
52.0
17.3
32.4 58.1
19.5 47.2
41.1
64.6 53.2
1.21
9.4
11.1
58.9
33.3
116.9
97.8
51.5
43.2
35.7 66.8
13.5 48.2
40.9
71.6 55.6
1.58
11.1 10.9
52.6
25.3
-19.1
97.8
116.9
45.8
27.5
33.2 64.3
19.0 45.9
30.5
71.3 49.2
0.83
7.6
8.3
44.2
33.2
73.3
+13.0
115.2
102.2
50.3
38.3
41.6 66.2
17.2 48.4
36.7
77.8 55.2
1.29
9.0
10.9
55.5
28.0
73.3
-13.0
102.2
115.2
49.2
23.5
33.8 58.4
18.1 45.9
37.5
69.6 51.7
1.07
9.5
10.7
50.7
32.4
.637
76.9
+32.4
120.4
88.0
56.0
40.0
36.8 69.2
15.5 54.2
40.6
73.0 59.3
1.61
13.2 12.7
57.9
26.4
0-20
*
76.9
-32.4
88.0
120.4
44.1
27.2
30.8 63.2
23.3 43.5
30.2
69.2 47.4
0.71
9.0
7.8
51.6
33.5
30
27-3
.698
76.1
+24.1
118.4
94.3
53.7
38.6
40.2 68.5
17.0 52.4
38.1
76.3 57.8
1.43
11.0 12.4
58.0
27.7
Opp.
30
3-27
*
76.1
-24.1
94.3
118.4
46.9
25.4
31.5 59.8
21.2 44.4
34.6
69.8 49.8
0.87
9.7
9.3
53.2
33.0
UNC
8
7-1
.850
71.8
+20.9
116.6
95.7
51.6
41.7
35.5 65.4
13.5 48.0
41.4
71.2 55.4
1.58
12.1
9.6
52.1
25.1
Opp.
8
1-7
*
71.8
-20.9
95.7
116.6
45.4
25.3
34.6 64.5
19.8 45.6
30.0
67.7 48.2
0.78
7.1
8.7
43.3
33.1
UNC
9
8-1
.943
76.1
+20.6
116.2
95.6
53.3
47.5
33.7 70.0
15.3 50.7
40.1
73.3 57.7
1.38
10.7 10.5
53.7
26.8
Opp.
9
1-8
*
76.1
-20.6
95.6
116.2
46.2
37.1
30.0 66.3
20.5 47.2
29.5
68.8 50.1
0.79
8.5
9.1
48.5
33.9
UNC
6
5-1
.874
70.2
+11.7
114.6
102.9
50.5
33.1
40.5 62.2
17.2 46.9
39.8
81.0 55.2
1.25
10.6 11.2
53.2
28.3
Opp.
6
1-5
*
70.2
-11.7
102.9
114.6
50.0
16.7
37.8 59.5
19.3 45.8
38.2
63.6 51.2
0.99
8.7
9.9
47.6
36.5
UNC
10
8-2
.800
74.3
+14.3
117.9
103.6
51.7
36.3
41.8 65.3
16.3 50.1
37.9
75.9 55.9
1.37
10.8
9.9
52.6
24.6
Opp.
10
2-8
*
74.3
-14.3
103.6
117.9
51.6
21.7
34.7 58.2
20.5 48.4
39.0
72.2 53.9
1.02
8.7
10.6
52.6
31.6
UNC
13
13-0
.461
78.3
+37.2
120.8
83.6
55.7
38.7
40.2 70.6
16.7 55.2
37.9
74.0 59.2
1.64
12.2 14.6
63.3
28.9
Opp.
13
0-13
*
78.3
-37.2
83.6
120.8
41.4
24.7
29.4 59.8
22.2 39.7
30.0
69.9 44.8
0.74
10.3
7.6
53.5
31.9
UNC
15
14-1
.687
76.5
+26.7
119.7
93.0
55.5
36.1
39.8 69.5
17.0 53.0
41.6
73.8 58.8
1.60
11.9 13.0
62.6
26.5
Opp.
15
1-14
*
76.5
-26.7
93.0
119.7
47.7
23.6
30.5 60.2
21.9 45.0
35.5
67.1 50.0
0.87
10.1
9.3
54.2
32.3
UNC
12
10-2
.739
75.2
+19.7
115.2
95.5
50.6
40.2
39.6 67.0
16.6 50.3
34.4
78.6 55.8
1.21
9.7
12.0
50.8
27.9
Opp.
12
2-10
*
75.2
-19.7
95.5
115.2
46.4
26.6
33.0 60.4
20.5 44.9
33.1
72.9 49.8
0.86
8.9
9.8
50.3
32.2
neutral
UNC
11
10-1
.779
72.5
+23.1
118.9
95.8
53.1
42.4
37.9 66.5
15.0 50.7
39.8
73.1 57.1
1.51
12.0 10.1
54.8
27.3
Opp.
11
1-10
*
72.5
-23.1
95.8
118.9
45.4
26.6
33.5 62.1
20.0 44.0
32.0
68.3 48.3
0.83
8.3
8.1
47.7
34.7
wins
UNC
34
34-0
.715
75.4
+26.8
119.5
92.7
54.9
38.7
38.0 68.1
16.1 52.9
40.1
75.4 58.7
1.54
11.5 12.0
58.5
27.1
Opp.
34
0-34
*
75.4
-26.8
92.7
119.5
45.8
24.4
31.9 62.0
21.2 44.1
32.8
69.1 48.6
0.84
9.2
8.4
51.6
32.8
UNC
4
0-4
.860
73.5
-5.3
105.2
110.5
41.0
43.1
46.4 65.5
18.0 40.7
27.8
73.8 47.2
0.75
8.8
10.7
39.0
27.9
Opp.
4
4-0
*
73.5
+5.3
110.5
105.2
53.9
34.0
34.5 53.6
18.6 50.0
40.9
71.3 56.8
1.00
9.2
15.2
47.5
34.4
DECEMBER
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MAR/APRIL
ACC
NON-CONF.
REGULAR
POST
vs. TOP
25
vs. 26-50
vs. 51-100
vs. 100+
home
road
losSes
* SOS is the average Pythagorean Expected Winning % of UNC’s opponents (as calculated by Ken Pomeroy—kenpom.com)
2008–2009 INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS G
Min /G
Pts /G
Reb /G
Asst /G
St/G
Bl/G
TO/G
PF/G
A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
eFG%
TS%
FTA Rate
3PtA Rate
Usage Rate
OR%
DR%
PER
Hansbrough
34
30.3
20.7
8.1
1.0
1.2
0.4
1.9
2.3
0.54
51.4
84.1
39.1
52.4
61.3
68.2
5.3
23.5
11.1
17.6
27.7
Lawson
35
29.9
16.6
3.0
6.6
2.1
0.1
1.9
1.7
3.48
53.2
79.8
47.2
60.7
65.9
60.8
31.6
21.9
2.4
7.7
30.9
Ellington
38
30.4
15.8
4.9
2.7
0.9
0.2
1.6
1.5
1.63
48.3
77.7
41.7
57.9
60.4
25.2
45.8
19.5
5.4
11.4
20.8
Green
38
27.4
13.1
4.7
2.7
1.8
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.65
47.1
85.2
41.8
56.9
59.2
15.6
47.1
19.0
7.1
10.2
23.2
Thompson
38
24.8
10.6
5.7
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
2.2
0.54
49.2
64.6
–
49.2
51.9
33.9
0.0
17.5
7.8
15.4
17.0
Davis
38
18.8
6.7
6.6
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.1
1.9
0.55
51.8
57.3
–
51.8
53.5
50.3
0.0
14.8
12.8
21.4
19.6
Graves
20
11.2
4.0
2.6
0.8
0.4
0.1
1.2
1.6
0.65
43.7
88.9
27.8
50.7
53.1
12.7
50.7
17.4
10.1
12.3
12.2
Zeller
15
7.8
3.1
2.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.3
0.38
47.2
76.5
–
47.2
53.3
47.2
0.0
16.9
9.2
17.8
14.8
Frasor
38
17.4
2.6
2.0
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.7
1.4
2.08
33.3
46.2
27.4
42.3
42.7
11.7
65.8
9.5
3.7
7.7
8.1
Drew II
38
9.6
1.4
1.1
1.9
0.4
0.03
1.2
0.9
1.64
35.1
41.2
23.1
40.4
40.7
29.8
45.6
14.9
1.6
9.7
9.3
Ginyard
3
12.3
1.3
2.7
1.3
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.7
1.33
25.0
50.0
_
25.0
33.9
100.0
0.0
10.9
17.7
6.5
10.3
Tanner
21
2.1
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.0
42.1
33.3
35.7
55.3
52.6
31.6
73.7
19.2
3.6
7.8
15.4
Moody
21
2.1
1.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
58.3
61.5
_
58.3
60.5
108.3
0.0
17.8
7.7
18.0
23.3
Copeland
17
2.5
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
25.0
100.0
0.0
25.0
35.4
31.3
12.5
18.4
9.5
15.5
7.2
Watts
27
3.1
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.56
24.2
42.9
0.0
24.2
26.2
21.2
18.2
20.8
6.9
12.0
3.3
Wooten
19
1.9
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
36.4
25.0
20.0
40.9
38.8
36.4
45.5
15.9
0.0
8.9
5.4
Campbell
20
1.9
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.1
1.29
33.3
100.0
0.0
33.3
50.6
66.7
33.3
15.4
2.2
7.7
10.2
TEAM
–
–
–
3.1
–
–
–
0.03
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
4.6
3.4
–
Totals
38
40.1
89.8
42
18
8.6
5.2
12.4
16
1.45
48
75.2
38.7
53.3
57.3
39.2
27.2
–
39.2
67.8
–
2008–2009 DEFENSIVE STATISTICS Min.
FG-A
3Pt-A
FT-A
FG%
eFG%
TS%
Pts. All.
TOF
Off. Fouls
Defl.
DR%
St.%
Bl.%
Stop%
Def. Rat.
On-Court Def. Eff.
Hansbrough
1029
122-265
23-59
34-54
46.0
50.4
51.8
301
95
28
100
17.6
2.2
1.1
61.9
93.7
97.6
Lawson
1048
88.5-227.5
26-107
39-53
38.9
44.6
47.9
242
109.5
7
172
7.7
3.8
0.4
65.1
93.0
95.2
Ellington
1155
122-270
41-114
38-50
45.2
52.8
55.0
323
60.5
6
97
11.4
1.7
0.5
55.4
96.3
97.4
Green
1040
136-385.5
37.5-143
68-105
35.3
40.1
43.4
377.5
90.5
6
173
10.2
3.4
4.5
58.6
95.0
95.3
Thompson
943
95-273.5
16-53
63-90
34.7
37.7
42.5
269
56
2
98
15.4
2.0
3.9
60.3
94.4
94.0
Davis
716
80.5-293.5
14.5-42
64-91
27.4
29.9
35.6
239.5
33.5
2
52
21.4
1.0
8.2
63.1
92.7
94.9
Graves
224
22.5-66.5
5.5-24.5
32-44
33.8
38.0
47.2
82.5
19
6
31
12.3
1.6
0.9
56.9
95.8
88.1
Zeller
117
16.5-37.5
4-7
10-12
44.0
49.3
54.4
47
10
3
9
17.8
1.4
3.1
55.4
96.6
94.6
Frasor
662
82-183.5
29-84.5
35-52
44.7
52.6
54.8
228
54
12
70
7.7
1.8
0.7
54.4
96.8
95.3
Drew II
364
40.5-91.5
17.5-41.5
25-34
44.3
53.8
57.4
123.5
32.5
6
56
9.7
2.2
0.3
56.7
95.9
94.1
Ginyard
37
3.5-8.5
1-3
1-2
41.2
47.1
47.6
9
2.5
0
5
6.5
3.3
0.0
57.7
95.5
104.1
Tanner
45
3.5-11.5
2.5-7.5
5-8
30.4
41.3
47.4
14.5
1.5
0
2
7.8
1.1
0.0
54.6
96.6
103.7
Moody
44
5.5-15.5
0.5-1
4-7
35.5
37.1
41.2
15.5
3
0
5
18.0
2.2
6.7
61.4
93.3
105.0
Copeland
42
3-11
1-4
7-9
27.3
31.8
45.8
14
2.5
0
3
15.5
0.0
0.0
60.2
94.4
82.0
Watts
85
12.5-28
8.5-16.5
6-8
44.6
59.8
62.1
39.5
4
0
5
12.0
1.1
3.3
50.6
98.5
96.7
Wooten
37
2-13
1-9
3-5
15.4
19.2
26.0
8
1
1
2
8.9
0.0
0.0
69.1
91.2
98.1
Campbell
37
8.5-19.5
3.5-12.5
1-3
43.6
52.6
51.4
21.5
1
0
3
7.7
1.1
0.0
44.7
102.5
108.4
TEAM
–
169-265
42-86
0-0
63.8
71.7
71.7
380
29
0
0
3.4
–
–
34.4
–
–
Totals
1525
1013-2468
274-814
435-627
41
46.6
49.4
2735
605
79
883
67.8
11.2
11.9
57.2
95.6
95.6
Floorburns (223): Hansbrough (58), Green (28), Lawson (27), Frasor (25), Davis (22), Ellington (14), Thompson (12), Graves (10), Zeller (9), Drew II (8), Moody (4), Tanner (3), Watts (2), Copeland (1) Offensive Rebounds Allowed (494): Thompson (92), Team (92), Hansbrough (78), Davis (60), Green (59), Ellington (29), Frasor (21), Lawson (19), Graves (9), Drew II (7), Moody (7), Zeller (6), Wooten (5), Watts (4), Tanner (3), Campbell (2), Copeland (1) Denies/Forced Resets (239): Lawson (40), Ellington (38), Frasor (31), Green (31), Thompson (27), Drew II (24), Hansbrough (16), Davis (14), Graves (8), Zeller (4), Ginyard (3), Watts (3)
Scouting Reports and Statistical Profiles by Adrian Atkinson and George Hykal
I
n the section that follows, each of Carolina’s six returning rotation players will be highlighted with a four-page scouting report and statistical profile. Due to his lack of playing time, Justin Watts’s profile will only include a scouting report (and not a statistical breakdown). The first page of each profile includes scouting reports from George Hykal. Pages two, three, and four of each profile provide detailed statistical tables on each player. Page two includes projected statistics for 2010. These projections are estimated using a two-step process: First, assume an allocation of minutes for the 2009–10 team and an allocation of possession usage; Second, use average ACC player development curves (by position and class) and comparable/statistically similar player-development curves to build a forecasting model that projects per-minute averages for each statistical category. On page three, fans can find statistical box score splits for each player (by month, location, strength of opponent, etc.), as well as defensive box score statistics and shot creation data. The defensive box score stats are described in the statistical glossary on page 14. Page four of each profile includes tables on shot distribution, turnover distribution, and passing statistics. A description of the passing statistics can be found in the statistical glossary. Page four also includes plus-minus data for each player. These statistics are analogous to hockey’s plus-minus, tracking the score during a player’s minutes on the court. In this case, the raw plus-minus is converted to plus-minus efficiencies by using the number of possessions that a player is on the floor. Each player’s on-court numbers for the offensive and defensive “Four Factors” are also shown in the plus-minus tables. This allows us to determine if the team was better or worse (offensively, defensively, or overall) with a certain player on the court, and why the team was better or worse during those minutes.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 31
Deon Thompson
6' 9" | 245 | Torrance, CA | Senior 2008-09 Minutes: PF 97.5%, C 2.5%
21
D
eon, who turned 21 in September, provides the 200910 Tar Heels with the steady veteran leadership that typically provides the foundation for success at the college level. This season will be Thompson’s third as a starter and fourth as a member of the regular rotation. He has earned more minutes each season, averaging 12 minutes as a freshman, 21 as a sophomore, and 24 during last season’s national championship run. In his first three seasons, Deon enjoyed as much team success as anyone in UNC’s storied history. Absent some misfortune, Thompson is poised to break two of Danny Green’s Carolina records this season: most games played (145), and most wins (123). Deon has not missed a game in his UNC career and currently sits at 115 games played and 101 wins, only 31 games and 23 wins short of those marks. Thompson enters the 2009-10 season as the Heels’ top returning scorer (10.6 PPG) and second only to Ed Davis in rebounding (5.7 RPG) and shot-blocking (1.1 BPG). He had some big statistical games at the beginning of last season, including a 20-point, 9-rebound effort against Kentucky and a 19-point, 13-board performance against Notre Dame that had Carolina fans thinking he had finally made the leap to stardom. The ACC season, however, saw the return of Thompson the complementary player. There were even message-board calls for freshman
32
Photo on previous page: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images Photo on this page: Andy Lyons/Getty Images
#
sensation Ed Davis to replace him in the starting lineup. So what should we expect from this underthe-radar Tar Heel? Deon’s leadership and defense is what will keep him playing ahead of five post players who may all project to be better NBA prospects. This past season, Thompson developed into UNC’s most consistent post defender. Ed Davis might have been flashier, Tyler Hansbrough might have worked harder, but Deon was the guy that was tasked with defending guys like Trevor Booker. He consistently beat his man to the spot, held position, and built a wall exactly like the Tar Heel staff teaches their post players. He was also the best communicator on the back line of the defense, and seemed to relish the role of defensive quarterback. The same will be needed from him with a very young team this season. Thompson, while solid on the defensive glass (15.4 DR%), is not an exceptional rebounder. He gets caught watching sometimes when the ball goes up, and he does not have the best hands. He is also just an average weakside help defender, and while he blocks an average of a shot per game (3.9 Bl%), he does not force many turnovers (2.4 forced TO/40) or draw any charges (only two all season). While we can expect solidly consistent defense from Deon, offense is the big question mark for Thompson and the Heels. While Deon has shown some flashes of being a primary scorer in the paint, his utilization rate throughout his career has been that of a role player. His efficiency has been good, but not great (106.4 ORtg was last among UNC’s top six last season) as the fourth or fifth option on loaded Tar Heel teams. Thompson may see Hansbrough’s departure as an opportunity to establish himself as a primary scorer in the paint, but he might not like the added defensive attention. He will have to improve his game substantially to be a go-to-scorer at this level, and that will start with his ability to establish deep post position (both feet in the paint) and get to the line with moves toward the basket (as opposed to his tendency to fade away from his defender). While not a terrible free throw shooter, he will also need to improve on that 65% from the free throw line. Deon worked on his game this offseason by helping USA Basketball earn a bronze medal in this summer’s World University Games. He averaged 9.6 PPG and 5.9 RPG in 19 MPG over 10 games, which is slightly ahead of his UNC statistics. He looks physically stronger and ready for a big senior season.
Deon Thompson SHOTS BY ARE A AND CAREER STATISTICS SHOOTING BY AREA Area Left Close Middle Close Right Close Total Close Left Paint (5'-10') Right Paint (5'-10') Left Paint (10'-15') Right Paint (10'-15') Total Nonclose Paint Short Corners Elbows Elbows Extended Total Midrange 3-pt. Left Corner 3-pt. Left Wing 3-pt. Top of Key 3-pt. Right Wing 3-pt. Right Corner Total 3-Pt. Total 0'-10' Total 10'-19' Total Paint Total Nonpaint Total Nonclose ALL FGA
FG-FGA 22-36 30-45 36-57 88-138 16-37 9-28 4-9 6-14 35-88 12-31 3-8 26-68 41-107 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 113-203 51-130 123-226 41-107 76-195 164-333
Career STATS BY YEAR FGA / 40 1.5 1.9 2.4 5.8 1.6 1.2 0.4 0.6 3.7 1.3 0.3 2.9 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 5.5 9.6 4.5 8.3 14.1
%Shots 2.3 2.9 3.7 8.9 2.4 1.8 0.6 0.9 5.7 2.0 0.5 4.4 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 8.4 14.6 6.9 12.6 21.5
eFG% 61.1 66.7 63.2 63.8 43.2 32.1 44.4 42.9 39.8 38.7 37.5 38.2 38.3 55.7 39.2 54.4 38.3 39.0 49.2
Year
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG TOPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
PER
WORP / 35
FR
30.4 18.9
7.8
1.3
1.2
0.7
2.5
0.52 57.0 73.9 50.0 22.3
3.47
SO
29.9 18.4
7.9
1.2
1.1
0.5
2.0
0.61 52.5 76.8 25.0 24.3
3.97
JR
33.0 22.6 10.2
0.9
1.5
0.3
2.1
0.42 54.0 80.6
24.2
4.40
Projected SR
31.4 22.3
1.1
1.5
0.4
2.0
0.53 53.3 82.4 33.3 26.0
4.53
9.9
0.0
DEFENSIVE BOX SCoRE STATS BY YeaR Class
FG% All.
3Pt% All.
TS% All.
TOF / 40
Defl. / 40
Off. Fouls / 40
Stop%
Def. On-C/ Off-C
FR
39.9
26.1
44.6
2.72
3.01
0.32
60.3
-4.0
SO
43.2
41.3
48.3
3.52
3.48
0.99
63.3
-0.3
JR
45.2
25.3
50.4
3.98
4.88
1.29
63.5
+0.6
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Eric Williams (2004–05, JR)
Most statistically similar ACC season (juniors)
Eric Williams (2004–05)
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Marvin Williams (2004–05, FR)
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0
33.3% 1-3 33.3% 1-3
40.0% 2-5 44.4% 4-9
35.7% 10-28 N /A 0-0 41.7% 10-24
N /A 0-0
40.0% 2-5
43.2% 16-37
42.9% 6-14
32.1% 9-28
66.7% 30-45 63.2% 61.1% 36-57 22-36
40.6% 13-32 N /A 0-0 28.6% 2-7
33
Deon Thompson 2008–09 BOX SCORE STATISTICS All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ACC Nonconf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
G 38 7 6 8 7 10 18 20 30 8 9 6 10 13 15 12 11 34 4
MPG 24.8 40.0 26.9 25.0 26.1 25.0 22.1 25.5 24.2 25.8 21.0 23.9 25.7 24.6 25.2 25.5 26.5 22.0 25.0 23.3
PPG 10.6 15.8 15.6 12.2 8.4 9.1 8.8 9.0 12.0 11.2 8.3 10.1 9.3 11.2 10.9 11.9 9.6 9.8 10.7 9.5
RPG 5.7 8.5 8.0 5.3 6.4 5.0 4.2 5.7 5.7 6.1 4.0 4.4 6.3 6.2 5.8 6.0 5.8 4.8 5.6 6.3
APG 0.7 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8
SPG 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8
BPG 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.8
TOPG 1.3 1.9 1.1 2.0 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3
PFPG 2.2 3.3 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.6 2.6 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.6 3.2 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.5
A:TO 0.54 0.54 0.38 0.50 0.57 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.48 0.53 0.60 0.21 0.57 0.77 0.64 0.71 0.31 0.50 0.53 0.60
FG% 49.2 49.2 61.3 56.0 37.9 42.4 47.4 43.0 54.3 50.0 45.9 44.0 48.9 52.2 50.9 53.3 42.1 52.4 50.5 39.5
FT% 64.6 64.6 50.0 77.3 60.7 77.8 60.9 65.4 63.9 65.6 58.8 65.4 76.9 56.3 66.7 66.7 59.4 66.7 67.0 50.0
3Pt% -
eFG% 49.2 49.2 61.3 56.0 37.9 42.4 47.4 43.0 54.3 50.0 45.9 44.0 48.9 52.2 50.9 53.3 42.1 52.4 50.5 39.5
FTA Rate 33.9 33.9 27.5 44.0 42.4 30.5 29.5 34.9 33.2 35.3 27.9 31.0 27.7 35.6 37.5 37.8 28.1 35.7 32.9 42.1
TS% 51.9 51.9 60.3 60.4 42.2 47.4 49.5 46.6 56.1 52.7 47.8 47.2 52.7 53.2 53.8 55.9 44.5 55.0 53.2 41.7
Usage Rate1 17.5 17.5 19.6 18.6 15.6 17.0 17.3 16.2 18.8 17.4 18.0 19.2 14.9 18.5 16.9 18.1 16.7 17.7 17.2 20.7
OR% 8.0 8.0 12.1 5.4 5.4 9.8 7.2 8.4 7.6 8.2 6.9 6.1 9.2 11.2 6.0 7.4 8.2 8.5 7.3 12.8
DR% 15.4 15.4 18.2 16.9 17.9 11.4 12.3 14.4 16.2 16.1 12.2 13.0 16.4 15.2 16.5 17.0 13.8 15.1 15.6 13.2
PER 17.0 17.0 26.0 19.3 11.0 14.7 15.1 14.2 19.6 17.7 13.7 11.5 15.0 20.4 18.9 20.3 12.2 18.0 17.2 14.8
WORP / 352 1.37 2.21 3.41 1.83 0.20 0.92 0.90 0.85 1.83 1.57 0.60 0.28 1.00 2.02 1.79 2.09 0.45 1.38 1.42 0.88
1. Per-game stats in the “/ 40 minutes” row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2008-09 (70.0 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2008-09 pace of 75.9 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
In his quest to become a go-to scorer, Thompson must attack the rim and draw more fouls as a senior. 2008–09 BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS All: ACC:
Total Per 40 Total Per 40
Min. 944 40.0 460 40.0
FG-A 95-273.5 4.0-11.6 52.5-147.5 4.6-12.8
3Pt-A 16-53 0.7-2.2 10.5-31.5 0.9-2.7
FT-A 63-90 2.7-3.8 25-35 2.2-3.0
FG% 34.7 34.7 35.6 35.6
eFG% 37.7 37.7 39.2 39.2
TS% 42.5 42.5 42.8 42.8
Pts. All. 269 11.4 140.5 12.2
TOF 56 2.4 23.5 2.0
Off. Fouls 2 0.1 0 0.0
Defl. 98 4.2 43 3.7
DR% 15.4 15.4 14.4 14.4
St.% 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
Bl.% 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.3
Stop% 60.3 60.3 57.8 57.8
Def. Rat. 94.4 94.4 102.1 102.1
Def. Rat.+1 101.2 101.2 101.5 101.5
On-Court Def. Eff. 94.0 94.0 104.6 104.6
1. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by: # of FGs % of Total FGs
34
Unasst.
Lawson
Ellington
Green
Drew
Hansbrough
Davis
Frasor
Graves
Others
63
32
19
17
12
8
6
5
2
0
Total 164
38.4
19.5
11.6
10.4
7.3
4.9
3.7
3.0
1.2
0.0
100.0
Deon Thompson +/– STATISTICS All Minutes: On-Court Off-Court Difference1 As 4 (PF) As 5 (C)
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
944.0 581.0 920.1 22.6
75.1 75.3 -0.2 75.0 76.9
+27.3 +16.9 +10.4 +27.0 +36.4
121.3 115.2 +6.1 121.0 125.8
eFG% FTARate OR% Offensive 4 Factors 53.8 35.7 39.1 52.5 45.2 38.7 +1.3 -9.5 +0.4 54.0 35.6 38.9 47.9 38.3 41.9
TO%
Def. Eff.
15.2 18.5 +3.3 15.4 6.7
94.0 98.3 +4.3 94.0 89.4
eFG% FTA Rate DR% Defensive 4 Factors 46.5 21.7 66.8 46.9 31.5 69.9 +0.4 +9.8 -3.1 46.6 20.9 67.1 37.9 65.5 52.4
TOF% 22.5 19.2 +3.3 22.2 35.3
1. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher oncourt number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
TURNOVER STATISTICS Type Bad Pass Ball Handling Offensive Foul Traveling Bad Catch Live-ball TO Dead-ball TO Total
# of TOs 18 13 7 5 5 24 24 48
TOs / 40 0.76 0.55 0.30 0.21 0.21 1.02 1.02 2.03
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS
TO Rate (%) 5.1 3.7 2.0 1.4 1.4 6.9 6.9 13.7
Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
FGA / 40
Open
46-54
85.2
0-0
-
2.3
85.2
Lightly Contested
82-138
59.4
0-0
-
5.8
59.4
Contested
35-101
34.7
0-0
-
4.3
34.7
1-40
2.5
0-0
-
1.7
2.5
164-333
49.2
0-0
-
14.1
49.2
Heavily Contested Total
eFG%
PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40 0.7
Getty Images Sport/Andy Lyons
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA) 0.9
Paint Asst / 40 0.04 Pot. Paint / 40 0.1
Midrange Asst / 40 0.1
3-Pt. Asst / 40 0.7
Pot. Midrange / 40 0.3
FT Asst / 40 0.5
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40 1.5
Asst. / 40 1.6
Pot. Asst. / 40 3.6
“Hockey” Asst. / 40 1.1
Asst. % 43.0
Pass TO / 40 (PTO) 0.8
PCA:PTO 1.22
Asst. Rate (%) 4.5
Entry Passes / 40 0.6
Pass TO % 20.9 Entry Success% 28.6
%Open Created 22.8
Open FGA / 40 0.6
Entry Fail% 42.9
Entry Reset% 28.6
Thompson must become more aggressive around the rim in 2009-10. 35
Ed Davis
6' 10" | 225 | Richmond, VA | Sophomore 2008-09 Minutes: PF 96.2%, PF 3.8% With added strength and a better knowledge of Carolina’s defen-
32
#
sive schemes, he can dominate the defensive paint like no Heel
player in recent memory (a combination of Brendan Haywood and Sean May, perhaps). Outside of adding strength and mastering the UNC defensive system, he can work on getting into a defensive stance and moving his feet for when he gets matched up with perimeter-oriented big men. Ed will compete for the ACC Defensive Player of the Year, and possibly even the national DPOY. Offensively, Davis showed some flashes, but has a way to go before he becomes a consistent scorer. Last season, he attacked defenders with basically a single move, a highly effective lefty hook. He was also the team’s best offensive rebounder (12.8% offensive rebound percentage, 7th ACC), and the most
fter celebrating the Heels’ fifth NCAA champion-
reaches the elite efficiency numbers posted by Carolina’s top
ship, UNC fans turned their attention to their fresh-
four scorers from last season, he needs to add to his offensive
man sensation’s pro prospects. Would he follow
arsenal. Ed would be well-advised to watch tape of Tim Duncan
in the footsteps of Marvin Williams and Brandan Wight
and master some of the scoring moves out of his playbook. A
on his way to a quick payday? Not Ed. He pocketed his
turnaround bank shot, a baseline 12-footer, and some two- and
winning lottery ticket and decided to come back to Chapel
three-dribble drives would make him virtually impossible to
Hill and make his own legend. Consequently, the Heels
defend one-on-one. Throw in some improved free-throw shooting
immediately joined the list of contenders for next season’s
(57.3% last season), and 20 points per 30 minutes of action is
ultimate prize. Davis gives the Heels the best player on
a possibility with UNC’s fast-paced style.
the court more often than not, and that makes the game
In addition to a strenuous off-season program designed
easier for everybody else on the team. Ultimately, this
to improve everything from his strength and conditioning to his
team will go as far as Ed Davis takes them.
shooting, Davis played some organized pickup in Jerry Stack-
Ed made a name for himself last season with his defense
house’s NC Pro-Am Summer League at NC Central University.
and rebounding. He appears to be one of those rare play-
While he did not show his patented defensive tenacity, he did
ers who can protect the rim by aggressively contesting shots
show off a beautiful touch on a mid-range jumper. If Davis
(8.2% Bl%, 2nd in ACC) and still dominate the defensive glass
puts it all together during his sophomore season (especially
(21.4% DR%, also 2nd), all without fouling too much (about
on the offensive end, which is much more of a work-in-prog-
four fouls per 40 minutes). The scary thing about Davis is that
ress), ACC (and even National) Player of the Year is not out of
he still has plenty of room to mature physically and mentally.
the question.
36
Photo: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images
A
efficient scorer outside of the Big 4 (108.3 ORtg). Before he
Ed Davis SHOTS BY ARE A AND CAREER STATISTICS SHOOTING BY AREA Area Left Close Middle Close Right Close Total Close Left Paint (5'-10') Right Paint (5'-10') Left Paint (10'-15') Right Paint (10'-15') Total Nonclose Paint Short Corners Elbows Elbows Extended Total Midrange 3-pt. Left Corner 3-pt. Left Wing 3-pt. Top of Key 3-pt. Right Wing 3-pt. Right Corner Total 3-Pt. Total 0'-10' Total 10'-19' Total Paint Total Nonpaint Total Nonclose ALL FGA
FG-FGA 23-45 25-36 13-21 61-102 18-43 15-30 1-1 1-5 35-79 1-1 0-1 2-8 3-10 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 94-175 5-16 96-181 3-10 38-89 99-191
Career STATS BY YEAR FGA / 40 2.5 2.0 1.2 5.7 2.4 1.7 0.1 0.3 4.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.9 10.1 0.6 5.0 10.7
%Shots 3.8 3.1 1.8 8.7 3.6 2.5 0.1 0.4 6.7 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 1.4 15.4 0.8 7.5 16.2
eFG% 51.1 69.4 61.9 59.8 41.9 50.0 100.0 20.0 44.3 100.0 0.0 25.0 30.0 53.7 31.3 53.0 30.0 42.7 51.8
Year
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG TOPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
PER
WORP / 35
MPG
PPG
FR
18.8
6.7
6.6
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.1
0.55 51.8 57.3
0.0
19.6
1.71
Projected SO
25.0 12.3
9.5
1.1
0.6
2.4
1.8
0.65 53.6 64.5
0.0
22.5
2.84
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Dale Davis (1987-88, FR)
Most statistically similar ACC season (juniors)
Dale Davis (1987-88)
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Rasheed Wallace (1993-94, FR)
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0
0.0% 0-1 0.0% 0-1
0.0% 0-1 100% 1-1
66.7% 2-3 N /A 0-0 100% 1-1
N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0
41.9% 18-43
20.0% 1-5
50.0% 15-30
69.4% 25-36 61.9% 51.1% 13-21 23-45
0.0% 0-3 N /A 0-0 N /A 0-0
37
Ed Davis 2008–09 BOX SCORE STATISTICS All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ACC Nonconf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
G 38 7 6 8 7 10 18 20 30 8 9 6 10 13 15 12 11 34 4
MPG 18.8 40.0 23.6 17.5 18.4 16.3 18.5 17.3 20.2 18.6 19.8 17.1 21.0 18.0 19.7 17.9 19.3 19.6 18.8 19.0
PPG 6.7 13.1 9.3 5.7 6.0 4.1 7.7 5.4 7.8 6.3 8.1 5.8 6.5 5.7 8.1 5.9 7.0 7.4 6.9 4.8
RPG 6.6 13.0 9.0 7.3 6.8 5.1 5.3 5.7 7.4 6.8 5.8 5.3 7.7 5.8 7.5 7.1 6.3 6.2 6.7 5.5
APG 0.6 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.5
SPG 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3
BPG 1.7 3.3 1.4 2.0 2.3 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.8
TOPG 1.1 2.2 2.1 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.6 0.6 1.1 0.5
PFPG 1.9 3.8 1.6 1.7 2.5 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.6 2.5 1.9 2.0
A:TO 0.55 0.55 0.13 2.33 0.63 0.63 0.50 0.53 0.57 0.56 0.50 0.75 0.14 0.91 0.44 1.14 0.21 0.29 0.53 1.00
FG% 51.8 51.8 56.8 47.8 46.5 46.2 56.4 48.2 54.7 50.3 56.3 52.6 45.9 50.0 55.7 52.2 53.4 50.0 52.0 50.0
FT% 57.3 57.3 55.6 70.6 66.7 50.0 50.0 53.6 58.8 61.1 45.8 52.2 55.6 47.8 65.9 48.5 75.9 50.0 58.1 33.3
3Pt% -
eFG% 51.8 51.8 56.8 47.8 46.5 46.2 56.4 48.2 54.7 50.3 56.3 52.6 45.9 50.0 55.7 52.2 53.4 50.0 52.0 50.0
FTA Rate 50.3 50.3 61.4 73.9 27.9 38.5 54.5 32.9 64.2 50.3 50.0 60.5 24.3 50.0 58.6 47.8 50.0 53.1 53.8 16.7
TS% 53.5 53.5 57.2 54.7 49.3 47.2 55.6 49.3 56.4 53.0 54.7 53.1 47.2 50.1 58.7 52.0 58.5 50.5 53.9 48.9
Usage Rate1 14.8 14.8 16.3 13.2 14.9 13.4 15.3 14.5 15.1 14.8 15.0 13.1 14.3 15.0 16.1 14.6 14.8 15.1 15.3 10.9
OR% 12.8 12.8 11.8 14.2 13.3 12.3 11.5 14.0 11.3 12.9 11.3 11.4 14.7 14.2 10.7 11.4 13.1 13.0 12.8 10.1
DR% 21.4 21.4 26.7 29.9 22.3 21.1 17.9 19.9 25.5 23.7 18.0 20.8 23.2 19.5 26.6 29.5 20.2 18.7 21.6 19.1
PER 19.6 19.6 18.4 24.3 19.6 14.1 21.3 17.5 21.2 19.4 20.4 18.2 16.2 18.9 26.8 21.3 19.3 17.8 20.0 15.7
WORP / 352 1.71 3.64 1.91 2.25 1.67 0.76 1.93 1.28 2.09 1.65 1.92 1.36 1.33 1.54 2.92 1.87 1.69 1.50 1.78 1.13
1. Per-game stats in the “/ 40 minutes” row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2008-09 (70.0 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2008-09 pace of 75.9 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
Davis must add another dimension to his offensive game if he hopes to break out in 2009–10. 2008–09 BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS All: ACC:
Total Per 40 Total Per 40
Min. 717 40.0 317 40.0
FG-A 80.5-293.5 4.5-16.4 29.5-131.5 3.7-16.6
3Pt-A 14.5-42 0.8-2.3 5-15 0.6-1.9
FT-A 64-91 3.6-5.1 32-48 4.0-6.1
FG% 27.4 27.4 22.4 22.4
eFG% 29.9 29.9 24.3 24.3
TS% 35.6 35.6 31.1 31.1
Pts. All. 239.5 13.4 96 12.1
TOF 33.5 1.9 13 1.6
Off. Fouls 2 0.1 2 0.3
Defl. 52 2.9 20 2.5
DR% 21.4 21.4 19.9 19.9
St.% 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
Bl.% 8.2 8.2 9.4 9.4
Stop% 63.1 63.1 64.0 64.0
Def. Rat. 92.7 92.7 98.8 98.8
Def. Rat.+1 103.1 103.1 104.9 104.9
On-Court Def. Eff. 94.9 94.9 102.9 102.9
1. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by: # of FGs % of Total FGs
38
Unasst.
Lawson
Ellington
Green
Drew
Hansbrough
Davis
Frasor
Graves
Others
34
16
15
12
10
7
4
1
0
0
Total 99
34.3
16.2
15.2
12.1
10.1
7.1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Ed Davis +/– STATISTICS All Minutes: On-Court Off-Court Difference1 As 5 (C) As 4 (PF)
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
716.7 808.3 689.5 27.2
74.7 75.5 -0.8 74.6 77.9
+23.8 +22.9 +0.9 +25.7 -22.4
118.7 119.1 -0.4 119.6 96.1
eFG% FTARate OR% Offensive 4 Factors 54.5 38.8 39.5 52.3 39.5 38.4 +2.2 -0.7 +1.1 54.9 37.8 40.1 44.4 69.4 25.9
TO%
Def. Eff.
17.9 15.2 -2.7 18.0 17.3
94.9 96.2 +1.3 93.9 118.5
eFG% FTA Rate DR% Defensive 4 Factors 44.4 28.4 68.8 48.8 22.6 67.2 +4.4 -5.8 +1.6 43.6 27.9 68.3 68.9 45.9 89.5
TOF% 19.0 23.2 -4.2 18.9 22.2
1. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher oncourt number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
TURNOVER STATISTICS Type Bad Pass Ball Handling Offensive Foul Traveling Bad Catch Live-ball TO Dead-ball TO Total
# of TOs 15 6 3 5 11 21 19 40
TOs / 40 0.84 0.33 0.17 0.28 0.61 1.17 1.06 2.23
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS
TO Rate (%) 6.2 2.5 1.2 2.1 4.6 8.7 7.9 16.6
Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
FGA / 40
eFG%
Open
32-35
91.4
0-0
0.0
2.0
91.4
Lightly Contested
43-71
60.6
0-0
0.0
4.0
60.6
Contested
23-67
34.3
0-0
0.0
3.7
34.3
Heavily Contested
1-18
5.6
0-0
0.0
1.0
5.6
99-191
51.8
0-0
0.0
10.7
51.8
Total
PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40 1.3
Getty Images Sport/Streeter Lecka
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA) 1.8
Paint Asst / 40 0.0
Midrange Asst / 40 0.1
Pot. Paint / 40 0.2
3-Pt. Asst / 40 0.3
Pot. Midrange / 40 0.2
FT Asst / 40 0.5
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40 1.0
Asst. / 40 1.7
Pot. Asst. / 40 4.0
“Hockey” Asst. / 40 0.7
Asst. % 43.7
Pass TO / 40 (PTO) 0.8
PCA:PTO 2.13
Asst. Rate (%) 4.7
Entry Passes / 40 1.8
Pass TO % 21.1 Entry Success% 45.4
%Open Created 15.2
Open FGA / 40 0.4
Entry Fail% 48.5
Entry Reset% 6.1
Davis’s length makes him a constant shot-blocking and dunking force in the paint. 39
Marcus Ginyard
6' 5" | 210 | Alexandria, VA | RS-Senior 2008-09 Minutes: SF 77.1%, SG 16.0%, PF: 0.5% He uses his strength, length, and a savvy basketball mind to make life miserable for his man while also providing help-side defense at the
1
#
right time. He does, however, have some areas where he can improve defensively. His lateral movement is not as quick as desired for a lock-down defender (compared to, say, a Jackie Manuel), allowing quicker players to get in the lane and collapse UNC’s defense at times. Also, his defensive rebounding rate during his junior season was surprisingly low for a guy with his combination of size, strength, and basketball IQ (his 9.8 DR% was last amongst all the UNC regulars on the wing that season). Then again, Marcus was hobbled by a stress reaction in his foot throughout his junior season. He also boxes out as consistently as any Heel, allowing his teammates to gather more defensive boards. If he can stay healthy for the entire 2009–10 campaign, he could make a run at ACC DPOY. Offensively, Ginyard has played the role of complemenarcus is back from a foot injury for a fifth year after a
junior, his usage rate was the lowest of any of the regulars on
disappointing first attempt at his senior season, which
the team, falling behind limited offensive players like Quentin
he describes as “bittersweet.” While he was happy for
Thomas and Alex Stepheson. And when he did assert him-
his teammates and their success, sitting on the bench in a suit
self offensively, he was not quite as efficient as many of his
and watching while his friends made their championship run was
teammates (105.6 ORtg) despite little defensive attention. His
extremely frustrating for a guy that loves to compete. By the time
strengths have been his offensive rebounding, his ability to get
the NCAA Tournament arrived, Ginyard felt close to 100% healthy
to the line (his FT Rate in 2007–08 was second on the team
and was even demonstrating his considerable athleticism in some
behind only Hansbrough), and his spot-up shooting (40% on
high-energy workouts before each game. So why did he sit out when
three-pointers in limited attempts). He also provides a service-
he could have been playing for the big prize? Marcus decided that
able secondary ball-handler, and there is even talk of him play-
he did not want to come back and play catch-up in a reduced role
ing some minutes at the point guard spot this coming season
for a handful of games, even if they would be during a national title
(a role he played some in 2007–08 following injuries to Lawson
run. Instead, he chose to come back and be one of the leaders for a
and Frasor).
young team. He remembered David Noel’s influence on him and his
It is unlikely that Marcus will all of a sudden become a
young teammates during the 2005–06 season, and decided to follow
big scorer for the Tar Heels, but he has been putting in a lot of
in the footsteps of one of the greatest leaders to ever don the baby
work on his jump shot and ball-handling, and his ability to finish
blue. That decision allowed Roy Williams and his staff to sleep much
should be much improved as his healed foot allows him to go
more soundly this offseason, as they have at least one perimeter
up quicker and stronger than before. His defense and leader-
player that will be ready to compete during the ACC season.
ship will earn him the substantial minutes he will see, and the
Outside of his experience and leadership skills, Marcus
magnitude of improvement in his offensive game will have a
provides next season’s Tar Heels with a physical wing defender that
significant correlation with UNC’s chances to make another run
can match up favorably with many of the ACC’s top wing players.
at the ACC and NCAA titles.
40
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
M
tary player for the first four seasons of his UNC career. As a
Marcus Ginyard SHOTS BY ARE A AND CAREER STATISTICS 2007-08 SHOOTING BY AREA Area Left Close Middle Close Right Close Total Close Left Paint (5'-10') Right Paint (5'-10') Left Paint (10'-15') Right Paint (10'-15') Total Nonclose Paint Short Corners Elbows Elbows Extended Total Midrange 3-pt. Left Corner 3-pt. Left Wing 3-pt. Top of Key 3-pt. Right Wing 3-pt. Right Corner Total 3-Pt. Total 0'-10' Total 10'-19' Total Paint Total Nonpaint Total Nonclose ALL FGA
FG-FGA 24-53 18-25 28-52 70-130 1-11 5-14 4-12 1-6 11-43 3-8 0-3 2-8 5-19 1-4 6-10 3-7 2-5 0-4 12-30 76-155 10-37 81-173 17-49 28-92 98-222
FGA / 40 1.9 0.9 1.9 4.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.1 5.6 1.3 6.3 1.8 3.3 8.1
Career STATS BY YEAR %Shots 3.0 1.4 2.9 7.3 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.3 2.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.7 8.7 2.1 9.7 2.7 5.1 12.4
eFG% 45.3 72.0 53.8 53.8 9.1 35.7 33.3 16.7 25.6 37.5 0.0 25.0 26.3 37.5 90.0 64.3 60.0 0.0 60.0 49.0 27.0 46.8 46.9 37.0 46.8
Year
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG TOPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
PER
WORP / 35
FR
19.1
6.3
2.7
1.2
0.9
0.0
1.4
0.88 40.7 72.1 24.4 10.4
0.12
SO
16.9
4.1
3.2
1.5
1.1
0.1
1.1
1.33 47.3 79.2 27.3 14.4
0.67
JR
28.2
6.9
4.5
2.2
1.1
0.1
1.6
1.37 44.1 64.9 40.0 10.2
0.28
Projected SR
30.0
9.9
5.1
2.8
1.4
0.2
1.8
1.52 45.0 72.5 35.7 14.2
1.16
DEFENSIVE BOX SCoRE STATS BY YeaR Class
FG% All.
3Pt% All.
TS% All.
TOF / 40
Defl. / 40
Off. Fouls / 40
Stop%
Def. On-C/ Off-C
FR
45.5
43.0
58.9
2.99
3.83
0.38
53.9
-10.2
SO
37.7
35.2
50.3
3.73
4.91
0.45
61.7
+0.7
JR
42.1
25.6
48.6
3.18
4.27
0.48
57.6
-6.5
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Cornel Parker (1991-92, SO)
Most statistically similar ACC season (juniors)
Ademola Okulaja (1997-98)
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Ademola Okulaja (1997-98, JR)
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
42.9% 3-7
60.0% 6-10
0.0% 0-1 0.0% 0-2
N /A 0-0 33.3% 4-12
50.0% 1-2 25.0% 1-4 33.3% 1-3
40.0% 2-5
0.0% 0-2
9.1% 1-11
16.7% 1-6
35.7% 5-14
72.0% 18-25 53.8% 45.3% 28-52 24-53
25.0% 1-4 0.0% 0-3 50.0% 2-4
41
Marcus Ginyard 2007–08 BOX SCORE STATISTICS All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ACC Nonconf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
G 39 6 7 8 7 11 19 20 31 8 9 7 12 11 16 12 11 36 3
MPG 28.2 40.0 26.7 26.9 28.4 30.3 28.4 29.5 26.9 27.9 29.1 30.7 28.9 28.8 25.1 26.0 30.3 29.1 28.0 30.3
PPG 6.9 9.2 7.2 7.9 6.8 7.9 5.8 8.1 5.9 7.4 5.4 5.8 7.7 7.5 6.8 7.8 6.8 5.9 6.8 8.3
RPG 4.5 6.0 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.9 5.1 4.1 3.5 5.3 3.8 5.2 4.7 4.6 3.3
APG 2.2 2.9 1.8 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.0
SPG 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.7
BPG 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
TOPG 1.6 2.1 0.7 1.3 1.0 3.1 1.7 2.4 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 2.1 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.3
PFPG 2.0 2.7 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.0
A:TO 1.37 1.37 2.75 1.78 1.50 0.73 1.58 0.91 2.59 1.24 1.85 1.13 1.33 1.12 2.78 1.30 1.05 1.93 1.36 1.50
FG% 44.1 44.1 42.4 46.5 37.7 40.5 49.1 47.0 41.0 43.4 47.5 32.0 55.0 45.2 45.8 44.3 41.4 47.3 46.5 22.7
FT% 64.9 64.9 71.4 60.0 62.5 75.0 50.0 72.1 59.3 67.4 37.5 65.4 66.7 77.3 56.8 60.0 81.5 55.0 61.2 91.7
3Pt% 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 45.5 33.3 54.5 0.0 41.7 33.3 37.5 33.3 50.0 0.0 44.4 33.3 33.3 38.1 44.4
eFG% 46.8 46.8 42.4 46.5 41.5 47.3 51.8 52.1 41.0 46.2 50.0 35.0 57.5 50.0 45.8 48.5 42.9 49.1 48.5 31.8
FTA Rate 43.7 43.7 63.6 58.1 30.2 64.9 17.5 36.8 51.4 48.9 20.0 52.0 30.0 30.1 62.7 51.5 38.6 36.4 42.5 54.5
TS% 50.5 50.5 50.0 50.1 44.6 56.8 51.8 55.7 45.2 50.8 49.1 41.7 59.1 53.9 49.0 51.3 49.5 50.4 51.2 45.1
Usage Rate1 12.7 12.7 12.3 14.3 12.3 13.9 11.5 13.6 11.8 13.2 11.1 11.9 12.2 13.3 13.3 14.9 11.7 11.0 12.6 14.3
OR% 7.6 7.6 9.0 9.5 6.8 5.0 7.9 6.7 8.4 7.4 8.1 6.1 6.9 4.9 12.6 8.1 7.1 7.5 7.8 5.7
DR% 9.4 9.4 10.9 7.9 8.6 10.6 9.2 9.2 9.5 9.0 10.9 10.7 7.8 8.7 9.9 7.8 9.8 10.9 9.7 4.9
PER 10.2 10.2 13.2 12.7 9.1 8.2 8.9 9.7 10.8 10.5 9.3 7.5 10.9 9.1 13.8 11.9 8.7 9.8 10.3 9.1
WORP / 352 0.28 0.40 0.92 0.82 0.03 -0.20 -0.02 0.l6 0.38 0.33 0.06 -0.38 0.44 0.02 0.99 0.61 -0.08 0.18 0.30 0.01
1. Per-game stats in the “/ 40 minutes” row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2007-08 (70.8 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2007-08 pace of 75.4 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
The steady Ginyard will contribute on the offensive glass and in transition. 2007–08 BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS All: ACC:
Min. FG-A 3Pt-A Total 1087 127-302 27.5-107.5 Per 40 40.0 4.7-11.1 1.0-4.0 Total 565 57.5-165.5 15-69.5 Per 40 40.0 4.1-11.7 1.1-4.9
FT-A 49-80 1.8-2.9 33-49 2.3-3.5
FG% 42.1 42.1 34.7 34.7
eFG% 46.6 46.6 39.3 39.3
TS% 48.6 48.6 43.2 43.2
Pts. All. 330.5 12.2 163 11.5
TOF 86.5 3.2 44 3.1
Off. Fouls 13 0.5 8 0.6
Defl. 116 4.3 65 4.6
DR% 9.4 9.4 9.2 9.2
St.% 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9
Bl.% 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Stop% 57.6 57.6 60.7 60.7
Def. Rat. 95.6 95.6 97.0 97.0
Def. Rat.+1 100.2 100.2 101.9 101.9
On-Court Def. Eff. 97.7 97.7 98.8 98.8
1. Excluding SC State game (untelevised) 2. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by: # of FGs % of Total FGs
42
Unasst.
Lawson
Ellington
Green
Drew
Hansbrough
Davis
Frasor
Graves
Others
41
20
10
9
8
4
3
2
1
0
Total 98
41.8
20.4
10.2
9.2
8.2
4.1
3.1
2.0
1.0
0.0
100.0
Marcus Ginyard +/– STATISTICS All Minutes: On-Court Off-Court Difference1 As 3 (SF) As 2 (PG) As 1 (PG)
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
1086.8 453.2 838.1 173.4 69.7
74.5 76.0 -1.5 75.2 72.6 70.1
+21.8 +17.0 +4.8 +22.1 +15.2 +40.5
119.5 108.2 +11.3 120.6 114.8 119.8
eFG% FTARate OR% Offensive 4 Factors 54.1 39.8 42.0 50.3 31.8 40.4 +3.8 +8.0 +1.6 54.5 41.5 41.6 53.1 29.6 40.7 52.7 31.8 49.2
TO%
Def. Eff.
17.8 20.9 +3.1 17.1 20.2 19.8
97.7 91.2 -6.5 98.5 99.6 79.3
eFG% FTA Rate DR% Defensive 4 Factors 49.6 27.4 70.3 45.1 20.6 73.9 -4.5 -6.8 -3.6 49.9 26.9 70.5 51.4 26.0 70.5 39.1 31.7 67.1
TOF% 20.9 18.5 +2.4 20.6 20.8 26.7
1.Excluding SC State (untelevised) 2. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher oncourt number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
TURNOVER STATISTICS Type Bad Pass Ball Handling Offensive Foul Traveling Bad Catch Live-ball TO Dead-ball TO Total
# of TOs 29 25 5 3 0 35 27 62
TOs / 40 1.04 0.90 0.18 0.11 0.00 1.26 0.97 2.23
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS
TO Rate (%) 9.9 8.5 1.7 1.0 0.0 11.9 9.2 21.1
Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
FGA / 40
Open
45-53
84.9
4-11
36.4
2.4
79.7
Lightly Contested
29-55
52.7
6-11
54.5
2.4
57.6 17.4
eFG%
Contested
5-40
12.5
2-6
33.3
1.7
Heavily Contested
6-41
14.6
0-1
0.0
1.5
14.3
85-189
45.0
12-29
41.4
8.0
47.2
Total
1. Excluding SC State (untelevised)
PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40 1.8
Getty Images Sport/Kevin C. Cox
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA) 2.4
Paint Asst / 40 0.9 Pot. Paint / 40 2.1
Midrange Asst / 40 0.5
3-Pt. Asst / 40 0.7
Pot. Midrange / 40 1.4
FT Asst / 40 0.9
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40 1.8
Asst. / 40 3.9
Pot. Asst. / 40 8.8
“Hockey” Asst. / 40 1.3
Asst. % 44.7
Pass TO / 40 (PTO) 1.0
PCA:PTO 2.28
Asst. Rate (%) 11.0
Entry Passes / 40 7.3
Pass TO % 11.9 Entry Success% 36.2
%Open Created 16.3
Open FGA / 40 1.1
Entry Fail% 45.2
Entry Reset% 18.6
Ginyard will hope to be part of a fifth consecutive win at “Hansbrough Indoor Stadium.” 43
Larry Drew II
6' 2" | 180 | Woodland Hills, CA | Sophomore 2008-09 Minutes: PF 99.1%, SG 0.9% quick decisions, and forces teams to abandon their offensive sets and play more at UNC’s preferred
11
#
pace. Larry was also an impressive defensive rebounder from the point
guard position (9.7 DR%), using his quickness and ability to anticipate the flight of the ball to get to loose balls. Some added strength, and he can be a terror to opposing point guards. On the negative side, there were two glaring holes in Larry’s game that made him more of a liability than an asset for much of his freshman season: his inability to make a jump shot and his lack of ball security. Drew II shot poorly across the board (45% 2FG, 23% 3FG, 41% FT), and he appeared to have little confidence with his shot. Even more troubling were his turnovers, which came in every flavor. Larry’s Turnover Rate for the season (40.6) has been matched only by the shaky Quentin Thomas during Roy Williams’s tenure at UNC. Drew II, however, seemed to turn a corner after the postseason started. For the final eight games of the season, Larry rew II is the only true point guard on this year’s roster, which
turnovers. It looked like he was starting to get it, attempting
will have the coaching staff and fans holding their breath
fewer high school plays (i.e., plays that worked in high school,
every time he takes a fall, steps on somebody’s foot, or picks
but have no chance at the college level) and showing a nice
up an early foul. His maturation, both physically and mentally, will determine whether this team even has a chance of putting up a fight in its
chemistry with his roommate, Ed Davis. In some off-season quotes, Larry showed a refreshing self
title defense. He does not have to be an All-ACC performer, but he has
awareness: “Based off of watching me play last year, I’d be
to be a floor general that can run the offense and get the ball where it
pretty down on me, too.” He spent the second summer session
needs to go without turning it over. Larry is following in the footsteps of
back home in California working with his father (an NBA as-
arguably the greatest offensive season by a point guard in UNC history,
sistant coach) to recreate his body and his jump shot, working
so it will be important for the coaching staff and the fans to understand
hard to eliminate a hitch (he was bringing the ball close to his
that things will not run as smoothly as they did last season. Ty Lawson’s
ear like a slingshot before he released it). Despite last season’s
departure left a gaping hole in UNC’s offense, and it will be up to Larry
poor shooting statistics and the hitch in his shot, Drew showed
to turn the page and get the Tar Heels moving forward on their next mis-
a good shooting eye in high school and during the McDonald’s
sion (no pressure, right?).
All-American event, where he won the three-point shooting con-
Drew II’s freshman season was a mixed bag. On the positive
test. If he can straighten out his jump shot and continue on that
side, he showcased some impressive passing skills (27.7 Assist
13-assist-to-3-turnover streak he started in the ACC Tourna-
Rate, 6th in the ACC) and some tenacious perimeter defense.
ment last season, Drew can be the engine that helps this team
If there is one thing that the coaching staff can count on from
mount a respectable title defense. His message to UNC fans:
Larry this season, it is a solid defensive effort. He used his
“I’m going to have to step up to the plate. I know what it takes
length and quickness to initiate several five-second counts on
now to get to this stage and to win a national championship. I’ll
opposing point guards while more often than not staying in front
be more than ready.” Tar Heel fans are hoping these words turn
of them. This ability really pressures opposing guards to make
out to be prophetic.
44
Photo: Joe Murphy/Getty Images
D
played 74 minutes and dished out 13 assists to only three
Larry Drew II SHOTS BY ARE A AND CAREER STATISTICS SHOOTING BY AREA Area Left Close Middle Close Right Close Total Close Left Paint (5'-10') Right Paint (5'-10') Left Paint (10'-15') Right Paint (10'-15') Total Nonclose Paint Short Corners Elbows Elbows Extended Total Midrange 3-pt. Left Corner 3-pt. Left Wing 3-pt. Top of Key 3-pt. Right Wing 3-pt. Right Corner Total 3-Pt. Total 0'-10' Total 10'-19' Total Paint Total Nonpaint Total Nonclose ALL FGA
FG-FGA 4-10 3-4 2-4 9-18 1-1 1-4 1-2 0-0 3-7 0-0 0-1 2-5 2-6 1-5 4-10 0-2 1-6 0-3 6-26 11-23 3-8 12-25 8-32 11-39 20-57
Career STATS BY YEAR FGA / 40 1.1 0.4 0.4 2.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 2.9 2.6 0.9 2.8 3.6 4.4 6.4
%Shots 1.7 0.7 0.7 3.0 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 4.3 3.8 1.3 4.2 5.3 6.5 9.5
eFG% 40.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 25.0 50.0 42.9 0.0 40.0 33.3 30.0 60.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 34.6 47.8 37.5 48.0 34.4 35.9 40.4
Year
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG TOPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
PER
WORP / 35
FR
9.6
1.4
1.1
1.9
0.4
0.03
1.2
1.64 35.1 41.2 23.1
9.3
0.10
Projected SO
25.0
5.9
3.2
5.1
1.2
0.1
2.4
2.16 42.4 65.0 34.8 13.0
0.75
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Derrick McQueen (1990-91, SO)
Most statistically similar ACC season (juniors)
Adam Boone (2000-01)
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Adam Boone (2000-01, FR)
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
0.0% 0-2
40.0% 4-10
N /A 0-0 50.0% 1-2
100% 1-1 50.0% 1-2
0.0% 0-2 20.0% 1-5 N /A 0-0
16.7% 1-6
0.0% 0-1
100% 1-1
N /A 0-0
25.0% 1-4
75.0% 3-4 50.0% 40.0% 2-4 4-10
N /A 0-0 0.0% 0-3 N /A 0-0
45
Larry Drew II 2008–09 BOX SCORE STATISTICS G 38 7 6 8 7 10 18 20 30 8 9 6 10 13 15 12 11 34 4
All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ACC Nonconf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
MPG 9.6 40.0 12.7 11.2 8.8 8.0 8.2 8.3 10.8 9.7 9.3 6.3 7.7 9.4 12.8 10.3 8.0 10.4 9.7 9.0
PPG 1.4 5.4 2.1 1.8 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 2.0 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.8 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3
RPG 1.1 4.2 2.0 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8
APG 1.9 7.3 3.7 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.4 2.4 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.3 1.7 3.2 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.0
SPG 0.4 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
BPG 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0
TOPG 1.2 4.6 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.1 0.7 1.1 2.0
PFPG 0.9 3.5 1.1 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.8 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8
A:TO 1.64 1.64 2.89 1.38 1.08 0.73 3.75 1.04 2.40 1.45 4.33 0.78 2.67 1.00 2.63 1.33 1.54 2.75 1.89 0.50
FG% 35.1 35.1 33.3 50.0 46.2 16.7 23.1 23.8 41.7 37.8 25.0 42.9 12.5 25.0 43.5 37.5 42.9 26.3 37.3 16.7
FT% 41.2 41.2 50.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 50.0 33.3 33.3 66.7 20.0 30.8 75.0
3Pt% 23.1 23.1 28.6 50.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 25.0 16.7 40.0 0.0 20.0 23.1 22.2 16.7 27.3 26.1 0.0
eFG% 40.4 40.4 40.0 65.0 46.2 16.7 26.9 23.8 50.0 43.3 29.2 50.0 12.5 29.2 50.0 41.7 46.4 34.2 43.1 16.7
FTA Rate 29.8 29.8 40.0 0.0 46.2 33.3 23.1 38.1 25.0 31.1 25.0 35.7 50.0 16.7 26.1 25.0 42.9 26.3 25.5 66.7
TS% 40.7 40.7 42.0 65.0 50.5 14.4 24.3 28.2 48.4 44.5 26.1 48.9 20.2 30.9 48.4 41.0 50.4 32.7 42.0 31.6
Usage Rate1 14.9 14.9 16.5 13.0 18.9 14.5 11.7 15.6 14.5 15.8 11.4 18.7 13.6 15.1 13.9 16.0 15.3 13.1 14.5 18.4
OR% 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.7 2.9 0.0 1.3 0.7 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.9 2.4 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 1.9 1.7 0.0
DR% 9.7 9.7 14.3 4.5 14.7 5.6 7.4 10.3 9.5 10.3 7.9 5.3 6.6 10.2 11.7 9.9 12.4 7.6 9.7 9.3
PER 9.3 9.3 18.9 10.1 9.8 -3.8 6.7 2.1 14.3 9.8 7.4 4.7 8.5 2.1 15.2 9.0 10.4 8.8 10.6 -2.8
WORP / 352 0.10 0.42 1.11 0.19 0.13 -0.76 -0.08 -0.39 0.54 0.14 -0.05 -0.17 0.03 -0.45 0.73 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.20 -0.78
1. Per-game stats in the “/ 40 minutes” row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2008-09 (70.0 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2008-09 pace of 75.9 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
With more consistent minutes, Drew II should see a healthy spike in his three-point percentage. 2008–09 BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS All: ACC:
Total Per 40 Total Per 40
Min. 356 40.0 145 40.0
FG-A 40.5-91.5 4.6-10.3 18-39 5.0-10.8
3Pt-A 17.5-41.5 2.0-4.7 9-21 2.5-5.8
FT-A 25-34 2.8-3.8 7-9 1.9-2.5
FG% 44.3 44.3 46.2 46.2
eFG% 53.8 53.8 57.7 57.7
TS% 57.4 57.4 60.1 60.1
Pts. All. 123.5 13.9 52 14.3
TOF 32.5 3.7 8 2.2
Off. Fouls 6 0.7 1 0.3
Defl. 56 6.3 17 4.7
DR% 9.7 9.7 10.3 10.3
St.% 2.1 2.1 0.8 0.8
Bl.% 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Stop% 56.7 56.7 51.4 51.4
Def. Rat. 95.9 95.9 104.7 104.7
Def. Rat.+1 99.7 99.7 99.1 99.1
On-Court Def. Eff. 94.1 94.1 103.3 103.3
1. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by: # of FGs % of Total FGs
46
Unasst.
Lawson
Ellington
Green
Drew
Hansbrough
Davis
Frasor
Graves
Others
10
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
Total 20
50.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Larry Drew II +/– STATISTICS All Minutes: On-Court Off-Court Difference1 As 1 (PG)
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
355.9 1169.1 352.8
74.7 75.3 -0.6 74.6
+12.9 +26.5 -13.6 +12.8
107.0 122.5 -15.5 107.0
eFG% FTARate OR% Offensive 4 Factors 51.8 38.9 35.0 53.8 39.2 40.0 -2.0 -0.3 -5.0 51.8 39.2 35.1
TO%
Def. Eff.
20.8 15.2 -5.6 20.9
94.1 96.0 +1.9 94.2
eFG% FTA Rate DR% Defensive 4 Factors 44.9 32.1 74.6 47.2 23.4 65.9 +2.3 -8.7 +8.7 44.9 32.1 74.7
TOF% 18.8 21.9 -3.1 18.8
1. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher oncourt number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
TURNOVER STATISTICS Type Bad Pass Ball Handling Offensive Foul Traveling Bad Catch Live-ball TO Dead-ball TO Total
# of TOs 32 7 1 5 0 26 19 45
TOs / 40 3.60 0.79 0.11 0.56 0.00 2.92 2.14 5.06
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS
TO Rate (%) 28.9 6.3 0.9 4.5 0.0 23.5 17.1 40.6
Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
FGA / 40
eFG%
Open
5-6
83.3
3-11
27.3
1.9
55.9
Lightly Contested
8-10
80.0
3-9
33.3
2.1
65.8
Contested
1-13
7.7
0-6
0.0
2.1
5.3
Heavily Contested
0-2
0.0
0-0
0.0
0.2
0.0
14-31
45.2
6-26
23.1
6.4
40.4
Total
PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40 6.2
Getty Images Sport/Kevin C. Cox
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA) 7.4
Paint Asst / 40 1.3 Pot. Paint / 40 3.4
Midrange Asst / 40 0.3
3-Pt. Asst / 40 2.7
Pot. Midrange / 40 2.1
FT Asst / 40 2.2
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40 7.5
Asst. / 40 10.6
Pot. Asst. / 40 24.1
“Hockey” Asst. / 40 1.9
Asst. % 43.9
Pass TO / 40 (PTO) 3.6
PCA:PTO 2.06
Asst. Rate (%) 27.7
Entry Passes / 40 13.5
Pass TO % 15.0 Entry Success% 40.0
%Open Created 25.9
Open FGA / 40 4.7
Entry Fail% 45.8
Entry Reset% 14.2
Drew II showed flashes of defensive brilliance as a freshman in 2008-09. 47
William Graves
6' 6" | 240 | Greensboro, NC | RS-Junior 2008-09 Minutes: SF 84.4%, PF 15.6% his scoring (53.1% TS), on par with freshman sensation Ed Davis
13
#
(53.5% TS). And he was using his length, athleticism, and knack
for the ball, to compete on the boards (12.3 DR%, 10.1 OR%), battling Deon Thompson for the title of third-best rebounder on the squad. He was still a little loose with the ball (27.1% TO Rate), second worst on the team. Unfortunately, it appears Graves was even looser with something outside of basketball, receiving a season-ending suspension from the coaching staff before the February 11 Duke game. Fortunately for both Will and UNC fans, it looks like he will be back on the roster this season. If properly motivated and well-conditioned, he stands to play a big role on this
ecruiting guru Bob Gibbons once compared William
shooter for the defending champs. To have a chance at
to Larry Bird, and Roy Williams has expressed his
repeating, the Tar Heels need someone like him to step up
belief that Graves will be a “big-time” player for the
and make plays consistently on offense. Last time there
Tar Heels. Will’s career, however, has gotten off to a slow start.
was a void in scorers like this, Tyler Hansbrough stepped up
He redshirted in 2006–07 and worked on his body, dropping 30
and kicked off an epic career. If Graves can commit himself
pounds. As a redshirt freshman in 2007–08, he averaged a little
to basketball in a similar way that Tyler did (admittedly, no
over five minutes per game and gave Tar Heel fans a glimpse
easy feat), he can be a rock for this season’s offense. Like
of that sweet perimeter stroke that earned him the Larry Bird
Reyshawn Terry in 2006—who was a similarly-ranked, seldom-
comparison in high school (44.2% 3FG). With Ginyard injured
used (as an underclassman) native North Carolinian—the
and on the sidelines to start the 2008–09 season, it looked like
opportunity is there for Graves to assume a much larger
Graves would be in for a big role on a national title contender.
scoring role during his junior campaign.
Will’s third season at UNC started well as he just looked
Will is the biggest question mark on the team, even more
much more confident. He made plays on defense and in
so than the freshmen. His possible production ranges as high as
transition, and even began making plays for his teammates
the team’s leading scorer and as low as off the team. Hopefully,
(respectable 10.3 Assist Rate). Ironically, the only thing that
the competition with a talent like John Henson will bring out the
wasn’t working for him was his jump shot (27.8% 3FG). Even
best in him. He is a local kid, and UNC fans are looking for any
without his threes falling, Graves was reasonably efficient with
reason to get behind him. Go get some Mr. Graves.
48
Photo: Brian A. Westerholt/Getty Images
R
team. Graves is by far the most accomplished returning
William Graves SHOTS BY ARE A AND CAREER STATISTICS SHOOTING BY AREA Area Left Close Middle Close Right Close Total Close Left Paint (5’-10’) Right Paint (5’-10’) Left Paint (10’-15’) Right Paint (10’-15’) Total Non-Close Paint Short Corners Elbows Elbows Extended Total Mid-Range 3-pt. Left Corner 3-pt. Left Wing 3-pt. Top of Key 3-pt. Right Wing 3-pt. Right Corner Total 3-Pt. Total 0’-10’ Total 10’-20’ Total Paint Total Non-Paint Total Non-Close ALL FGA
Career STATS BY YEAR
FG-FGA 6-8 5-5 5-7 16-20 1-2 2-4 0-0 0-1 3-7 1-1 0-1 1-6 2-8 2-12 4-10 0-3 1-6 3-5 10-36 19-26 2-9 19-27 12-44 15-51 31-71
FGA / 40 1.4 0.9 1.3 3.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.4 2.2 1.8 0.5 1.1 0.9 6.5 4.7 1.6 4.8 7.9 9.1 12.7
%Shots 2.2 1.4 1.9 5.4 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.3 1.6 2.2 3.3 2.7 0.8 1.6 1.4 9.8 7.1 2.4 7.3 12.0 13.9 19.3
eFG% 75.0 100.0 71.4 80.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 42.9 100.0 0.0 16.7 25.0 25.0 60.0 0.0 25.0 80.0 41.7 73.1 22.2 70.4 38.6 39.2 50.7
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG TOPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
PER
WORP / 35
FR
5.2
2.2
1.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.09 39.1 58.3 44.2 15.0
0.26
SO
11.2
4.0
2.6
0.8
0.4
0.1
1.2
0.65 43.7 88.9 27.8 12.2
0.26
Projected JR
10.0
4.2
2.4
1.0
0.3
0.1
1.1
0.92 45.0 83.3 38.5 14.5
0.30
DEFENSIVE BOX SCoRE STATS BY YeaR Class
FG% All.
3Pt% All.
TS% All.
TOF / 40
Defl. / 40
Off. Fouls / 40
Stop%
Def. On-C/ Off-C
FR
37.4
32.2
47.4
2.25
3.59
0.22
58.1
+2.7
SO
33.8
22.4
47.2
3.41
5.56
1.08
56.9
+8.9
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Steve Lepore (2001-02, JR)
Most statistically similar ACC season (juniors)
Michael Joiner (2001-02)
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Dave Popson (1985-86, JR)
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
0.0% 0-3
40.0% 4-10
N /A 0-0 0.0% 0-3
N /A 0-0 N /A 0-0
50.0% 1-2 16.7% 2-12 100% 1-1
16.7% 1-6
0.0% 0-1
50.0% 1-2
0.0% 0-1
50.0% 2-4
100% 5-5 71.4% 75.0% 5-7 6-8
0.0% 0-1 60.0% 3-5 N /A 0-0
49
William Graves 2008–09 BOX SCORE STATISTICS All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ACC Nonconf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
G 20 7 6 7 0 0 6 14 20 0 3 3 3 11 10 7 3 18 2
MPG 11.2 40.0 12.7 11.3 9.6 8.3 12.4 11.2 9.0 6.7 10.7 13.2 11.4 10.4 12.3 11.0 13.0
PPG 4.0 13.2 4.3 5.2 2.7 2.5 4.6 4.0 4.0 0.0 5.3 4.7 5.0 2.9 3.3 3.7 6.5
RPG 2.6 8.6 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.6 1.3 0.7 3.0 3.3 3.5 1.4 2.0 2.3 4.5
APG 0.8 2.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0
SPG 0.4 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.0
BPG 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5
TOPG 1.2 4.0 0.7 1.3 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.5
PFPG 1.6 5.3 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.8 1.9 1.6 2.0 0.7 0.7 2.0 1.2 1.9 2.3 1.5 2.5
A:TO 0.65 0.65 1.20 0.63 0.40 0.10 1.08 0.65 0.50 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.69 0.67 0.50 0.75 0.00
FG% 43.7 43.7 46.2 45.8 38.1 33.3 47.2 43.7 50.0 0.0 50.0 44.7 50.0 36.0 40.0 43.3 45.5
FT% 88.9 88.9 100.0 83.3 100.0 100.0 87.5 88.9 100.0 75.0 100.0 87.5 100.0 87.5 100.0
3Pt% 27.8 27.8 28.6 33.3 20.0 22.2 29.6 27.8 20.0 0.0 42.9 27.3 41.2 8.3 28.6 26.7 33.3
eFG% 50.7 50.7 53.8 54.2 42.9 38.9 54.7 50.7 55.0 0.0 65.0 51.1 59.7 38.0 50.0 50.0 54.5
FTA Rate 12.7 12.7 7.7 25.0 4.8 5.6 15.1 12.7 10.0 0.0 40.0 8.5 22.2 4.0 0.0 13.3 9.1
TS% 53.1 53.1 55.7 57.7 44.2 40.6 57.2 53.1 57.3 0.0 67.2 53.2 62.8 39.3 50.0 52.5 56.6
Usage Rate1 17.4 17.4 14.5 20.3 18.5 21.4 16.3 17.4 21.2 15.7 18.9 16.7 18.6 16.9 15.0 17.0 20.6
OR% 10.1 10.1 7.3 13.5 12.2 10.4 10.0 10.1 8.1 0.0 15.9 11.4 16.3 4.3 5.9 9.5 16.4
DR% 12.3 12.3 11.0 11.9 15.4 11.9 12.4 12.3 7.4 10.1 13.3 13.5 16.1 9.5 10.4 12.1 17.2
PER 12.2 12.2 13.1 15.4 7.7 1.5 15.3 12.2 12.1 -9.0 16.8 14.1 17.7 5.6 8.1 11.8 14.8
WORP / 352 0.26 0.93 0.39 0.55 -0.12 -0.52 0.59 0.26 0.20 -0.98 0.64 0.51 0.77 -0.31 -0.12 0.22 0.57
1. Per-game stats in the “/ 40 minutes” row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2008-09 (70.0 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2008-09 pace of 75.9 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
Graves has the ability to be Carolina’s zone buster, and an athletic finisher around the rim. 2008–09 BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS All: ACC:
Total Per 40 Total Per 40
Min. 223 40.0 48 40.0
FG-A 22.5-66.5 4.0-11.9 4.5-15 3.8-12.5
3Pt-A 5.5-24.5 1.0-4.4 2.5-8.5 2.1-7.1
FT-A 32-44 5.7-7.9 9-10 7.5-8.3
FG% 33.8 33.8 30.0 30.0
eFG% 38.0 38.0 38.3 38.3
TS% 47.2 47.2 51.9 51.9
Pts. All. 82.5 14.8 20.5 17.1
Off. Fouls 6 1.1 2 1.7
TOF 19 3.4 3.5 2.9
Defl. 31 5.6 7 5.8
DR% 12.3 12.3 11.9 11.9
St.% 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0
Bl.% 0.9 0.9 1.9 1.9
Stop% 56.9 56.9 54.6 54.6
Def. Rat. 95.8 95.8 103.4 103.4
Def. Rat.+1 99.8 99.8 100.3 100.3
On-Court Def. Eff. 88.1 88.1 104.4 104.4
1. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by: # of FGs % of Total FGs
50
Unasst.
Lawson
Ellington
Green
Drew
Hansbrough
Davis
Frasor
Graves
Others
17
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Total 31
54.8
19.4
9.7
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.0
0.0
100.0
William Graves +/– STATISTICS All Minutes: On-Court Off-Court Difference1 As 3 (SF) As 4 (PF)
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
223.0 1302.0 188.2 34.7
77.6 74.7 +2.9 77.1 80.6
+23.7 +23.3 +0.4 +21.9 +32.8
111.7 120.2 -8.5 110.3 118.9
eFG% FTARate OR% Offensive 4 Factors 52.7 39.2 40.2 53.4 39.2 38.7 -0.7 0.0 +1.5 51.5 37.5 40.6 59.5 48.3 37.5
TO%
Def. Eff.
20.2 15.8 -4.4 20.3 19.6
88.0 96.9 +8.9 88.4 86.1
eFG% FTA Rate DR% Defensive 4 Factors 41.6 40.1 74.2 47.5 23.0 66.9 +5.9 -17.1 +7.3 40.6 38.0 73.9 47.9 53.2 75.8
TOF% 21.6 21.1 +0.5 20.5 27.7
1. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher oncourt number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
TURNOVER STATISTICS Type Bad Pass Ball Handling Offensive Foul Traveling Bad Catch Live-ball TO Dead-ball TO Total
# of TOs 12 5 2 4 0 9 14 23
TOs / 40 2.15 0.90 0.36 0.72 0.00 1.62 2.51 4.13
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS
TO Rate (%) 14.1 5.9 2.4 4.7 0.0 10.6 16.5 27.1
Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
FGA / 40
eFG%
Open
8-11
72.7
1-2
50.0
2.3
73.1
Lightly Contested
9-13
69.2
7-27
25.9
7.2
48.8
Contested
4-9
44.4
2-7
28.6
2.9
43.8
Heavily Contested Total
0-2
0.0
0-0
0.0
0.4
0.0
21-35
60.0
10-36
27.8
12.7
50.7
PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40 1.6
Getty Images Sport/Andy Lyons/Stringer
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA) 1.8
Paint Asst / 40 0.2 Pot. Paint / 40 0.5
Midrange Asst / 40 0.5
3-Pt. Asst / 40 1.3
Pot. Midrange / 40 1.1
FT Asst / 40 0.9
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40 1.8
Asst. / 40 3.6
Pot. Asst. / 40 7.4
“Hockey” Asst. / 40 0.9
Asst. % 48.8
Pass TO / 40 (PTO) 2.2
PCA:PTO 0.83
Asst. Rate (%) 10.3
Entry Passes / 40 4.8
Pass TO % 29.3 Entry Success% 48.2
%Open Created 34.8
Open FGA / 40 1.4
Entry Fail% 25.9
Entry Reset% 25.9
After re-shaping his body, Graves played above the rim more frequently as a sophomore. 51
Tyler Zeller
7' 0" | 240 | Washington, IN | Sophomore 2008-09 Minutes: C 100% He may have only totaled 72 minutes over the final 13 games, but he was able to practice with the team, play in front of big crowds
44
#
during some high-pressure situations, and scratch the box score with a point in the national title game. Those experiences should put him in good position to be the first big man off the bench, in front of some very talented freshmen. During his limited time on the court last season, Zeller displayed a beautiful shot with a consistent release, and while he did not attempt a three during a game, he certainly showed three-point range in shooting drills before the games. He also showed a developing baby hook with both hands, and the ability to knock down free throws. After only grabbing three rebounds in
eller’s freshman season started with so much prom-
court looking to be more aggressive, pulling down 27 rebounds
ise. First, during the preseason, he beat out the more
in his last 72 minutes on the court. Finally, his ability to run
highly-regarded Ed Davis (who was battling an irritated
the court as a seven-footer cannot be overlooked on a team
fat pad in his knee) to start in place of an injured Hansbrough.
that likes to run as much as the Tar Heels. Carolina will need as
Then, in his first college game, he poured in 18 points to lead
many easy hoops as possible in 2009–10, and Zeller’s ability
the Tar Heels to a win against the University of Pennsylvania. In
to consistently beat slower bigs down the court should provide
his debut, Tyler hit from the field, threw down some impressive
more than a few transition scores.
dunks, and sank 8-10 free throws. In the closing minutes of
Reports had Tyler working hard in the gym this sum-
the very next game, however, he was knocked off balance by
mer, adding 20 pounds to his lanky frame, putting him at
Kentucky’s Ramon Harris while going for an exclamation-point
a respectable 240 pounds entering the season. He brings
dunk on a breakaway, landing awkwardly with his left hand and
length, speed, and shooting to the frontcourt positions. For a
fracturing his left wrist in the process. This injury cost him three
team that may struggle with perimeter shooting, Zeller’s abil-
months of games and practices and any chance to be a part of
ity to shoot with range is a huge asset. If his added strength
the regular rotation in the postseason.
translates into holding position on defense, fighting for
In February, Zeller made a difficult decision to forego a
position on rebounds, and finishing strong around the rim,
medical redshirt and a fifth year of eligibility, and came back to
the Heels may have the best big man reserve in the country
be primarily a practice player for the remainder of the season.
next season.
52
Streeter Lecka/Getty Images
Z
45 minutes of game action before his injury, Tyler returned to the
Tyler Zeller SHOTS BY ARE A AND CAREER STATISTICS SHOOTING BY AREA Area Left Close Middle Close Right Close Total Close Left Paint (5'-10') Right Paint (5'-10') Left Paint (10'-15') Right Paint (10'-15') Total Nonclose Paint Short Corners Elbows Elbows Extended Total Midrange 3-pt. Left Corner 3-pt. Left Wing 3-pt. Top of Key 3-pt. Right Wing 3-pt. Right Corner Total 3-Pt. Total 0'-10' Total 10'-19' Total Paint Total Nonpaint Total Nonclose ALL FGA
FG-FGA 2-4 1-1 7-12 10-17 1-3 3-7 0-0 1-1 5-11 2-5 0-2 0-1 2-8 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 14-27 3-9 15-28 2-8 7-19 17-36
Career STATS BY YEAR FGA / 40 1.4 0.3 4.1 5.8 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 3.7 1.7 0.7 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 3.0 9.5 2.7 6.4 12.2
%Shots 2.1 0.5 6.2 8.8 1.6 3.6 0.0 0.5 5.7 2.6 1.04 0.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 4.7 14.5 4.2 9.9 18.7
eFG% 50.0 100.0 58.3 58.8 33.3 42.9 100.0 45.5 40.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 51.9 33.3 53.6 25.0 36.8 47.2
Year
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG TOPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
PER
0.0
WORP / 35
FR
7.8
3.1
2.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.38 47.2 76.5
14.8
0.41
Projected SO
17.0
8.2
4.3
0.7
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.66 51.0 81.5 36.4 16.7
1.15
Most statistically similar ACC season (all classes)
Dwayne Collins (2006-07, FR)
Most statistically similar ACC season (juniors)
Dwayne Collins (2006-07)
Most statistically similar UNC season (all classes)
Eric Montross (1991-92, SO)
PerCENTAgES aND SHOTs BY AREA
N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0
0.0% 0-2 N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0 N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0 N /A 0-0 50.0% 1-2
N /A 0-0
N /A 0-0
33.3% 1-3
100% 1-1
42.9% 3-7
100% 1-1 58.3% 50.0% 7-12 2-4
0.0% 0-1 N /A 0-0 33.3% 1-3
53
Tyler Zeller 2008–09 BOX SCORE STATISTICS All Games / 40 Min.1 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ACC Nonconf Regular Post vs. Top 25 vs. 26-50 vs. 51-100 vs. 100+ Home Road Neutral Wins Losses
G 15 2 0 0 3 10 7 8 7 8 5 2 6 2 5 2 8 13 2
MPG 7.8 40.0 22.5 8.0 4.8 5.7 9.6 11.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 8.8 18.0 13.6 4.5 5.0 8.2 5.0
PPG 3.1 14.7 10.0 4.0 1.5 2.3 3.9 4.6 1.9 1.4 0.0 3.0 11.0 6.0 0.7 1.9 3.5 1.0
RPG 2.0 9.5 1.5 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.3 1.0 0.5 2.2 5.0 1.8 1.0 2.3 2.1 1.5
APG 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
SPG 0.2 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
BPG 0.2 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
TOPG 0.5 2.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5
PFPG 1.3 6.3 2.5 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 0.3 1.1 1.4 1.0
A:TO 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.50 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.33 0.43 0.00
FG% 47.2 47.2 42.9 36.4 63.6 46.2 47.8 40.0 63.6 50.0 36.8 63.6 45.5 0.0 63.6 51.5 0.0
FT% 76.5 76.5 80.0 100.0 33.3 100.0 69.2 85.7 33.3 50.0 100.0 72.7 83.3 100.0 33.3 73.3 100.0
3Pt% -
eFG% 47.2 47.2 42.9 36.4 63.6 46.2 47.8 40.0 63.6 50.0 36.8 63.6 45.5 0.0 63.6 51.5 0.0
FTA Rate 47.2 47.2 71.4 36.4 27.3 30.8 56.5 56.0 27.3 33.3 21.1 100.0 54.5 66.7 27.3 45.5 66.7
TS% 53.3 53.3 53.3 46.5 60.4 53.7 53.1 50.6 60.4 50.4 43.1 67.8 54.2 25.3 60.4 56.1 25.3
Usage Rate1 16.9 16.9 17.4 23.7 13.0 17.9 16.4 18.1 14.7 17.4 4.6 17.7 18.2 17.8 20.3 14.7 16.8 18.3
OR% 9.2 9.2 4.8 13.4 13.3 13.0 8.7 7.0 15.8 16.4 0.0 9.6 9.2 6.4 11.6 15.8 10.4 8.5
DR% 17.8 17.8 2.6 21.8 27.2 20.4 13.9 9.1 29.4 10.0 25.2 16.1 18.2 7.5 22.1 29.4 15.6 22.3
PER 14.8 14.8 17.4 14.6 12.5 11.4 16.6 14.0 16.3 9.2 -4.9 9.8 29.7 15.8 0.8 16.3 16.2 -0.3
WORP / 352 0.41 2.10 1.65 0.41 0.16 0.14 0.64 0.51 0.32 0.03 -0.42 0.11 3.08 0.82 -0.27 0.32 0.52 -0.34
1. Per-game stats in the “/ 40 minutes” row are pace-adjusted to reflect an average-paced ACC game for 2008-09 (70.0 possessions / 40 minutes). Per-game stats in all other rows are pace-dependent (based on UNC’s 2008-09 pace of 75.9 possessions / 40). 2. WORP / 35 (wins over replacement player per 35 games) measures the number of marginal wins that a player contributes as compared to a “replacement level” ACC player at his position.
UNC’s most skilled post player, Zeller can finish with either hand in the paint. 2008–09 BE YOND THE BOX SCORE STATISTICS DEFENSIVE BOX SCORE STATISTICS All: ACC:
Total Per 40 Total Per 40
Min. 118 40.0 41 40.0
FG-A 16.5-37.5 5.6-12.7 7.5-12 7.3-11.7
3Pt-A 4-7 1.4-2.4 2-3 2.0-2.9
FT-A 10-12 3.4-4.1 3-4 2.9-3.9
FG% 44.0 44.0 62.5 62.5
eFG% 49.3 49.3 70.8 70.8
TS% 54.4 54.4 71.9 71.9
Pts. All. 47 15.9 20 19.5
Off. Fouls 3 1.0 1 1.0
TOF 10 3.4 3 2.9
Defl. 9 3.1 3 2.9
DR% 17.8 17.8 20.4 20.4
St.% 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0
Bl.% 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0
Stop% 55.4 55.4 47.6 47.6
Def. Rat. 96.6 96.6 107.1 107.1
Def. Rat.+1 99.0 99.0 96.9 96.9
On-Court Def. Eff. 94.6 94.6 107.1 107.1
1. Defensive Rating+ is an index of a player’s Defensive Rating compared to UNC’s average team defensive efficiency where 102 is 2% better than average and 98 is 2% worse than average.
SHOT CREATION Assisted by: # of FGs % of Total FGs
54
Unasst.
Lawson
Ellington
Green
Drew
Hansbrough
Davis
Frasor
Graves
Others
4
4
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
Total 17
23.5
23.5
17.6
17.6
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
100.0
Tyler Zeller +/– STATISTICS All Minutes: On-Court Off-Court Difference1 As 5 (C)
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
117.7 1407.3 117.7
72.2 75.4 -3.2 72.2
+7.5 +24.6 -17.1 +7.5
102.1 120.2 -18.1 102.1
eFG% FTARate OR% Offensive 4 Factors 44.0 30.6 42.0 54.1 39.9 38.7 -10.1 -9.3 +4.3 44.0 30.6 42.0
TO%
Def. Eff.
18.1 16.3 -1.8 18.1
94.6 95.6 +1.0 94.6
eFG% FTA Rate DR% Defensive 4 Factors 50.3 25.6 75.7 46.4 25.4 67.4 -3.9 -0.2 +8.3 50.3 25.6 75.7
TOF% 23.3 21.0 +2.3 23.3
1. A positive (negative) difference means that the team is better (worse) in an area during the minutes that the player is on the court. In some cases (e.g., offensive efficiency, OR%), this is reflected in a higher oncourt number. In other cases (e.g., defensive efficiency, TO%), this is reflected in a lower on-court number.
TURNOVER STATISTICS Type Bad Pass Ball Handling Offensive Foul Traveling Bad Catch Live-ball TO Dead-ball TO Total
# of TOs 3 1 3 1 0 4 4 8
TOs / 40 1.02 0.34 1.02 0.34 0.00 1.36 1.36 2.72
SHOOTING BY LEVEL OF CONTESTEDNESS
TO Rate (%) 5.5 1.8 5.5 1.8 0.0 7.4 7.4 14.7
Type
2-Pt FG
2-Pt FG%
3-Pt FG
3-Pt FG%
FGA / 40
eFG%
Open
4-4
100.0
0-0
0.0
1.4
100.0
Lightly Contested
8-14
57.1
0-0
0.0
4.7
57.1
Contested
5-15
33.3
0-0
0.0
5.1
33.3
Heavily Contested
0-3
0.0
0-0
0.0
1.0
0.0
17-36
47.2
0-0
0.0
12.2
47.2
Total
PASSING STATISTICS Close Asst / 40 1.0
Getty Images Sport/Joe Murphy/Stringer
Pot. Close / 40 (PCA) 1.0
Paint Asst / 40 0.0 Pot. Paint / 40 0.0
Midrange Asst / 40 0.0
3-Pt. Asst / 40 0.3
Pot. Midrange / 40 0.0
FT Asst / 40 0.3
Pot. 3-Pt. / 40 1.4
Asst. / 40 1.4
Pot. Asst. / 40 3.4
“Hockey” Asst. / 40 0.0
Asst. % 40.0
Pass TO / 40 (PTO) 1.0
PCA:PTO 1.00
Asst. Rate (%) 4.8
Entry Passes / 40 0.7
Pass TO % 30.0 Entry Success% 100.0
%Open Created 16.7
Open FGA / 40 0.3
Entry Fail% 0.0
Entry Reset% 0.0
Even though he doesn’t figure to crack the starting lineup, Zeller should often be the first Heel to the scorer’s table. 55
6' 4" | 210 | Durham, NC | Sophomore 2008-09 Minutes: SF: 55.7%, PF: 38.7%, SG: 5.6%
Justin Watts
tion opposite Marcus Ginyard will consist of William Graves and two freshmen (Leslie McDonald and Dexter Strickland), one of whom
24
#
(Strickland) appears to be the top candidate for the backup point guard spot. With some reasonable improvement over the summer, Justin has an opportunity to crack Roy Williams’s wing rotation. So what does Watts bring to the table? He may be the best run-and-jump athlete on the team, which, combined with his long arms, allows him to play above the rim from the wing position. He has a year of experience in the Carolina offensive and defensive systems, and works as hard as anyone on the team in improving his game and body. He lacks no confidence, taking over Danny Green’s pre-game dance routine as Danny moved into the starting lineup. The limitations in his game last season were readily ap-
J
ustin Watts played the role of practice player and human
parent: his handle was loose and his jump shot was crooked. If
victory cigar for most of last season. If Carolina fans saw
he can correct these flaws, he can be a contributor. Watts spent the summer sessions working on his game on
Watts on the floor, it meant that the regulars had built an
insurmountable lead and it was time to start cheering for free
campus. He also played organized pickup ball with incoming
biscuits. Then he opened some eyes when he played a hand-
freshmen John Henson, Dexter Strickland, and Leslie McDon-
ful of meaningful minutes in the opening round of the ACC
ald on Team Dreamworks in Jerry Stackhouse’s NC Pro-Am
Tournament against Virginia Tech. While he did not score in the
Summer League. In these games, Watts showed a consistent
game, he looked comfortable and confident on the court with
ability to get by his man and score or get to the line, albeit
the regulars, even dishing for a nice assist in a heated contest.
against porous, unorganized defenses. He also showed his tre-
regular rotation this season? Not only is the regular rotation
to be seen if any of his talent can translate into meaningful
a possibility, it would not even be that surprising to see him
minutes during Carolina’s title defense, or if he is destined to
start a game or two in the early going. Assuming John Henson
follow in the footsteps of pickup legends Orlando Melendez
is primarily a 4, Watts’s competition for the starting wing posi-
and Terrance Newby.
BOX SCoRE STATS Justin Watts
56
MPG 3.1
PPG 0.7
RPG 0.7
APG 0.2
SPG 0.1
BPG 0.1
A:TO 0.56
FG% 24.2
FT% 42.9
3Pt% 0.0
PER 3.3
WORP/35 -0.15
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
mendous athleticism on some spectacular dunks. It remains
So is there any reason to believe that Justin will be in the
Freshman Scouting Reports and Evaluations by Rob Harrington
F
or only the third time since 1983 (the first year for which historical recruiting data is available online), Carolina welcomes five top-50 recruits to campus. And, like the first two times it happened (high school class of 1990: Montross, Rozier, Phelps, Reese, Sullivan; high school class of 2006: Wright, Lawson, Ellington, Stepheson, Thompson), the Heels hope to parlay that recruiting jackpot into a championship during that class’s tenure in Chapel Hill. To get to know this new crop of Tar Heels, Prepstars’ Rob Harrington will profile each newcomer in the pages that follow. Each of the five freshman profiles contains a projected stats table separated into two rows: The first row summarizes the average contribution for an ACC freshman whose position and recruiting tier correspond with that member of UNC’s incoming class; the second line shows the projected stats for that specific UNC recruit. By knowing what an average top-10 power forward produces as an ACC freshman, we can have a reasonable baseline of what to expect from John Henson (on a per-minute basis). Of course, there’s a ton of variability in freshman-year production, as every newcomer adjusts differently to college and roles fluctuate wildly by team, coach, and situation. Incoming ACC freshmen are historically unpredictable; to paraphrase the great Dean Smith: “That’s why they call them prospects.” While the statistical projections are my own, the scouting reports and player evaluations are wholly attributable to Rob Harrington—one of the very best recruiting analysts in the business. —Adrian Atkinson
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 57
6' 10" | 195 | Tampa, FL (Sickles) | Freshman PF Prepstars: #5 RSCI: #5
John Henson
31
#
to the Tar Heels, so credit Roy Williams and his assistants for locking him up early. The speed with which Henson can make an impact in such a
loaded frontcourt largely depends on his ability to gain weight. He grew very rapidly in high school and still has not filled out physically, so strength and conditioning coordinator Jonas Sahratian will face a steep climb in attempting to put the necessary strength on Henson’s lean frame. Competing for a role in a frontcourt that includes a trio of older teammates—Deon Thompson, Ed Davis, and Tyler Zeller—who all weigh 30-60 pounds more than him, Henson must perform at a very high level in order to garner his share of the available frontcourt minutes. In the bigger picture, however, Henson projects as a potential star due to his length, quickness, and surprising ball skills for such a tall player. In fact, he may possess a better off hand (left, in Henson’s case) than any big man in recent memory to Chances are, whatever happens during the 2009–10 cam-
fans had the opportunity to gaze upon such length and
paign, his natural talent will enable him to establish a memo-
athleticism. Though Ed Davis certainly possesses some
rable legacy prior to leaving campus.
of Wallace’s proclivities for blocking shots, it’s John Henson who most resembles ’Sheed in body type and style of play. Henson actually has been mentioned as a potential small
Impact of a Top 5 Freshman (Data from 1984-2009) Recruiting Rank
FR MPG
FR WORP
%NBA
Top 5
25.6
2.02
96.3
6-10
21.4
1.37
62.2
11-15
22.2
0.89
72.2
the basket and either shooting from 10–15 feet, putting the
16-20
19.4
1.12
44.0
ball on the floor, or making nice passes to open teammates.
21-25
16.0
0.56
36.8
26-40
15.8
0.55
30.8
41-60
16.1
0.53
22.7
61-80
14.4
0.33
13.0
81-100
14.5
0.41
12.5
forward, but for now he’s likely to begin his college career as a shot-blocking 4 and utility scorer. He’s at his best facing
He showcased his versatile talents throughout the summer of 2008 and during a huge senior season, cementing his status among the top five prospects in the Class of 2009. He actually was considered a lower top-50 talent at the time of his pledge Projected BOX SCoRE STATS Avg. Top 10 PF John Henson
58
MPG 22.6 20.0
PPG 10.0 9.9
RPG 5.5 5.2
APG 1.1 1.3
SPG 0.9 1.0
BPG 0.8 1.9
A:TO 0.67 0.70
FG% 51.8 53.8
FT% 68.7 54.5
3Pt% 15.3 21.4
PER 17.8 18.8
WORP/35 1.80 1.89
Photo on previous page: Doug Benc/Getty Images Photo on this page: Ned Dishman/Getty Images
N
pass through Chapel Hill. ot since the days of Rasheed Wallace have Carolina
6' 3" | 180 | Rahway, NJ (St. Patrick) | Freshman SG/PG Prepstars: #20 RSCI: #24
Dexter Strickland
5
#
Strickland’s first order of business is to gain as much strength as possible in the preseason. He’s very thin and has checked in at approximately the same weight for the past three years, he must turn the corner in the weight room in order to withstand the highly physical guard play now common in the ACC. Because he can play either guard position, Strickland has been mentioned among scouts as a potential starter in the backcourt alongside sophomore Larry Drew. Alternatively, he could back up both guard positions and play heavy minutes as a reserve. Like most freshmen, he’s likely to be more comfortable adjusting to college basketball playing on the wing. Along with that, his ability to sprint out in transition and finish in Carolina’s up-tempo system could result in his becoming a key cog for a Heels team that has been questioned along the lines of perimeter scoring. Again, as with Henson, Strickland must add a solid amount of muscle in short order. And again, as with Henson, his longterm prospects in Chapel Hill are extremely promising.
Photo: Doug Benc/Getty Images
S
trickland emerged early as one of the premier guards in his high school class, and he pledged to the Heels as a junior over offers from Michigan State, Florida, Indiana, Villanova, and many others. The lanky backcourt performer is an elite athlete who may be the most explosive leaper at his size to join the Tar Heels this decade. A YouTube sensation whose slams punctuate graceful, one-footed aerial assaults, he finishes over the top against foes big and small on a regular basis. A combo guard who can play the point guard position in stretches—and who definitely can defend opposing floor generals—he has the size and length to play off the ball as well. His jump shot, though inconsistent, has range to the three-point stripe, and he’s an agile finisher once he gets into the lane.
Jersey Boys: UNC’s Garden State History Player
Hometown
G
PPG
RPG
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
Mike O’Koren (1977-80)
Jersey City
117
15.1
7.0
57.2
72.6
-
Jerry Vayda (1954-56)
Bayonne
65
13.6
7.8
40.1
67.2
-
Tommy Kearns (1956-58)
Bergenfield
80
11.6
3.0
41.4
66.5
-
Tony Radovich (1954-57)
Hoboken
79
7.9
3.2
42.4
78.4
-
Pat Sullivan (1991-95)
Bogota
117
4.1
1.9
49.6
77.4
25.7
Jim Delany (1968-70)
South Orange
73
3.2
0.6
40.6
78.0
-
Frank Goodwin (1955)
Belleville
16
2.1
1.1
30.0
88.2
-
Gene Glancy (1954)
Belleville
8
2.0
1.8
21.1
57.1
-
Lou Brown (1959-61)
Jersey City
40
1.7
0.7
51.0
61.3
-
Dick Kocornik (1954)
West Orange
15
1.5
1.4
41.2
34.8
-
John Crotty (1958-60)
Jersey City
55
1.0
0.5
41.7
60.0
-
Ryan Sullivan (1996-97)
Bogota
27
0.9
0.3
44.4
50.0
71.4
Greg Campbell (1966)
Bayonne
15
0.8
0.3
40.0
50.0
-
Dexter Strickland (2009-)
Rahway
FR in 2009-2010
Projected BOX SCoRE STATS Avg. 21-30 Combo Dexter Strickland
MPG 20.2 20.0
PPG 7.4 8.4
RPG 2.3 2.4
APG 1.7 2.4
SPG 0.9 1.1
BPG 0.1 0.2
A:TO 1.22 1.33
FG% 41.9 43.0
FT% 65.9 71.4
3Pt% 32.7 35.7
PER 13.5 14.8
WORP/35 0.72 1.24
59
6' 4" | 215 | Memphis, TN (Briarcrest) | Freshman SG/SF Prepstars: #37 RSCI: #44
Leslie McDonald
15
#
good defender who boasts a body that’s much closer to college-ready than that of fellow freshman guard Dexter Strickland. A great deal of McDonald’s offense comes in the form of midrange jump shots. He’s a confident shooter with three-point range, but he’s more accurate when pulling up from 15 feet off the dribble going in either direction. He isn’t a classic sky walker but possesses the athleticism to finish with slams, and his burgeoning strength will make him an even more effective defender and rebounder. As has been the case with Ginyard, McDonald’s multifaceted game makes pinning him at any one position difficult. He actually may spend more time at wing forward this season due to the lack of depth there, but eventually he may shift to shooting guard and conceivably could play a few minutes at point guard in a pinch. McDonald was the one Carolina signee who didn’t compete in the McDonald’s All-American Game this past spring, but over the next four seasons he should develop into an indispensable contributor, and odds are he’ll begin that process this season.
T
his Memphis product is one of the rare blue-chip recruits who turned down hometown Memphis, along with Duke and Tennessee, during the John Calipari era. McDonald struck a very close relationship with the Tar Heels coaching staff and was their top choice at the swing position, and his tangibles and intangibles should endear him to fans right away. McDonald isn’t celebrated for any one specific talent. He possesses a valuable blend of skills that has drawn comparisons to Carolina senior Marcus Ginyard, though McDonald is a little smaller and more offensively oriented than Ginyard. Like his older teammate, however, McDonald is a
Best Backcourts in UNC and ACC History (1980-2009) ACC Comb. WORP/35
Team (Season)
Backcourt
Comb WORP/35
Season
Backcourt
2009
Lawson/Ellington
8.15
Georgia Tech (1991)
K. Anderson/J. Barry
9.06
1984
K. Smith/Jordan
6.98
Duke (1993)
B. Hurley/T. Hill
8.94 8.71
1983
Braddock/Jordan
6.71
NC State (1991)
Corchiani/Monroe
1998
Cota/Sh. Williams
6.57
Georgia Tech (1990)
Anderson/Oliver
8.68
2005
Felton/McCants
6.39
NC State (1989)
Corchiani/Monroe
8.48
1993
Phelps/D. Williams
6.38
UNC (2009)
Lawson/Ellington
8.15
1992
Phelps/H. Davis
6.20
Duke (2001)
Duhon/J. Williams
7.68
1987
K. Smith/Lebo
6.02
Maryland (1992)
McLinton/W. Williams
7.51
1991
Rice/H. Davis
5.98
Georgia Tech (1995)
T. Best/D. Barry
7.42
1982
Black/Jordan
5.59
NC State (1990)
Corchiani/Monroe
7.38
1985
Smith/Hale
5.45
Florida State (1993)
Ward/Cassell
7.16 7.10
1989
Lebo/Bucknall
5.15
Wake Forest (2004)
Paul/Gray
1986
Smith/Hale
5.08
Georgia Tech (1986)
Price/Dalrymple
7.03
1997
Cota/Sh. Williams
5.02
UNC (1984)
K.Smith/Jordan
6.98
1980
Colescott/Wood
4.91
Georgia Tech (1985)
Price/Dalrymple
6.84
Projected BOX SCoRE STATS Avg. 41-50 Wing Leslie McDonald
60
MPG 17.1 21.0
PPG 6.1 7.3
RPG 2.5 3.1
APG 1.4 1.7
SPG 0.8 0.9
BPG 0.3 0.3
A:TO 1.05 1.11
FG% 44.5 43.8
FT% 65.6 74.5
3Pt% 31.5 34.8
PER 13.5 13.7
WORP/35 0.62 0.84
Photo: Arianna Hoffmann/Prep Stars
UNC
6' 10" | 225 | Huntington Beach, CA (Mater Dei) | Freshman
David Wear
PF Prepstars: #34 RSCI: #37
34
#
hooks using either hand. He actually has the size and bulk to play center in today’s college game, but his face-up ability has advanced to the point that he’s likely to see more time at power forward.
D. Wear is a capable jump shooter who surprisingly has three-point range—though it’s certainly unlikely he’ll be taking a lot of threes early on—and is a solid handler and passer either in the post or facing the hoop. He’s the more determined rebounder of the twins, and he also is a more stout interior defender. The knock on both Wears has been that they lack explosive athleticism, but consider that Roy Williams has done an excellent job of developing more fundamental big men over the years, such as Nick Collison, while at Kansas. The frontcourt logjam may prevent either twin from getting
O
heavy playing time this season, but both have the talent to comne of the talented and long-touted Wear twins from
pete with John Henson and the returnees on a hold-their-own
Southern California, many scouts gave up long ago try-
basis. Depending on team rebounding success, the twins may
ing to draw distinctions between
need to play earlier than many expect.
the brothers. Both are tall and, with the help
Late Bloomers: Little-Used (as Freshmen) Posts who Became Solid Contributors
of a personal trainer, have become very
Player (Year)
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG
PER
WORP /35 -
strong over the past two years. The twins
Tommy LaGarde (1974)
FR
-
2.2
1.5
0.2
-
-
-
had scholarship offers from UCLA, Arizona,
Tommy LaGarde (1977)
SR
-
15.1
7.4
0.9
0.9
1.6
-
-
and numerous others, but the opportunity
Warren Martin (1982)
FR
2.9
0.7
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
9.1
0.03
Warren Martin (1986)
SR
16.1
6.9
4.6
0.6
0.6
2.8
23.7
2.46
to play in UNC’s system was too much to
Dave Popson (1984)
FR
6.4
1.9
1.2
0.5
0.1
0.2
10.6
0.12
turn down. David is the more traditional of the two in terms of playing style. He’s very Photo: Doug Benc/Getty Images
Class
Dave Popson (1987)
SR
22.3
10.0
4.8
1.3
0.7
0.8
17.1
1.39
Kevin Salvadori (1991)
FR
3.3
1.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.3
17.5
0.36
Kevin Salvadori (1994)
SR
20.9
6.9
5.9
0.5
0.5
1.7
16.5
1.23
Serge Zwikker (1994)
FR
3.3
1.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.4
22.8
0.41
Serge Zwikker (1997)
SR
30.8
11.5
8.1
0.3
0.4
1.7
17.0
2.05
comfortable establishing position close to
Brendan Haywood (1998)
FR
8.1
2.9
2.4
0.2
0.3
0.9
22.2
0.90
the basket and scores effectively with jump
Brendan Haywood (2001)
SR
27.3
12.3
7.3
1.3
0.6
3.6
23.1
3.62
Projected BOX SCoRE STATS Avg. 31-40 PF/C David Wear
MPG 10.8 3.0
PPG 4.2 1.1
RPG 2.5 0.6
APG 0.3 0.1
SPG 0.3 0.1
BPG 0.5 0.1
A:TO 0.41 0.55
FG% 52.2 52.5
FT% 57.1 70.0
3Pt% 12.5 0.0
PER 13.5 12.8
WORP/35 0.39 0.11
61
6' 10" | 235 | Huntington Beach, CA (Mater Dei) | Freshman
Travis Wear
PF Prepstars: #31 RSCI: #38
43
#
of established firepower at wing forward, he actually may have a better chance of getting playing time this season than his brother.
Oh, Brother: The ACC’s Most Prolific Sets of Scoring Siblings Brothers (Points)
School(s)
Total Points
1. Randy (1171), Richie (1019), Tom (637), and Donnie (637) Mahaffey
Clemson
3555
2. Tom (1807) and Jay (1300) McMillen
Maryland
3107
3. Jeff (1601) and Jason (1447) Capel
Duke/UNC
3048
4. Drew (1253) and Jon (1080) Barry
Georgia Tech
2333
5. Matt (2225) and Patrick (3) Harpring
Georgia Tech
2228
6. Derrick (1458) and Cedric (535) Lewis
Maryland
1993
7. Horace (1696) and Harvey (144) Grant
Clemson
1840
Clemson/Duke
1809
UNC
1590
10. George (919) and Ed (571) Krajack
Clemson
1496
11. Chey (735) and Tony (733) Christie
Clemson
1468
12. Ilian (1214) and Vasco (105) Evtimov
NC State/UNC
1319
13. Bobby (678) and Ricky (640) Stokes
Virginia
1318
14. Trevor (1239) and Devin (FR in 2010) Booker
Clemson
1239*
8. Greg (1754) and Andre (55) Buckner 9. Joe (1231) and Jeff (359) Wolf
15. Jay (926) and Bruce (284) Buckley
quarters on the perimeter. He’s certainly capable
16. Alade (713) and Al-Farouq (401) Aminu
of scoring inside and chipping in as an offensive
Duke/UNC
1210
Ga. Tech/Wake Forest
1114*
UNC
1018
Virginia
974
17. Doug (987) and Donnie (31) Moe
rebounder, but clearly his role on their high school and travel
18. Bill (935) and Larry (39) Gerry
teams has been designed more toward playing at distance.
19. Jerry (905) and Roger (4) Montgomery
Wake Forest/Maryland
919
South Carolina
650
20. Walt (442) and Bury (208) Hudson
Travis Wear is a good jump shooter with a fluid release; he
Other UNC Brothers
doesn’t look like a big guy heaving up long bombs. He’s also a
Pat (478) and Ryan (24) Sullivan
UNC
502
more dynamic ball-handler and passer than his brother, and he
Gerald (177) and Richard (32) Tuttle
UNC
209
Ray (92) and Pud (23) Hassell
UNC
115
may be a touch quicker laterally despite weighing slightly more. As mentioned, both Wears are far more evolved in terms of strength than what one typically encounters in teenagers, and Travis can overpower shorter and weaker defenders on
Chris (103) and Matt (2) Brust
UNC
105
Jim (14), Charlie (12), and Joe (8) Everett
UNC
34
David (FR in 2009-10) and Travis (FR in 2009-10) Wear
UNC
??*
* At least one brother from this set is still active.
the perimeter. In fact, given his versatility and Carolina’s lack Projected BOX SCoRE STATS Avg. 31-40 PF/C Travis Wear
62
MPG 10.8 2.0
PPG 4.2 0.7
RPG 2.5 0.4
APG 0.3 0.1
SPG 0.3 0.1
BPG 0.5 0.1
A:TO 0.41 0.60
FG% 52.2 49.0
FT% 57.1 72.5
3Pt% 12.5 0.0
PER 13.5 12.6
WORP/35 0.39 0.08
Photo: Doug Benc/Getty Images
U
nlike brother David, Travis prefers to make his head-
Sizing up the competition 2009–10 ACC Preview by David Glenn
L
ast season was a bittersweet one for the ACC. The good news: 7 of the conference’s 12 teams made the NCAA Tournament, and North Carolina cut down the nets as national champions. The bad news: the other six Tournament teams combined for only three NCAA wins. In 2009–10, four ACC teams (Virginia, Maryland, Boston College, and Georgia Tech) return at least 70% of their production. And of the teams with more significant personnel losses, UNC, Duke, and Clemson are all reloading with very strong recruiting classes. With no team as mighty as the 2009 Tar Heels, the fight for first place might be more drama-filled in 2010.
1. Duke Twice in the offseason, those who dislike Duke and dream of the Blue Devils’ demise had reason to be excited, temporarily, at least. A June newspaper report suggested that the Los Angeles Lakers, who had offered Mike Krzyzewski a five-year, $40 million contract back in 2004 only to be turned down by the Duke coach, would target Krzyzewski again if Lakers coach Phil Jackson opted to retire after the team’s most recent NBA title, Jackson’s tenth. When Jackson decided to stay in L.A. for one more season, the idea became moot, but Coach K decided to clear the air anyway. “I’m not leaving Duke,” Krzyzewski said. “Whatever you hear about anything like that, I would never leave Duke until I leave coaching. Anything else that’s being said would just be somebody saying stuff.” Around the same time, Duke announced that guard Elliot Williams—a very important player for the Devils late last season, and projected as a crucial contributor again this fall— would transfer closer to his Memphis area home. (He very quickly picked Memphis.) The official explanation was “family medical reasons” (his mother is seriously ill), and everyone on both sides said all the politically correct things publicly, but the player’s decision shocked the Duke coaches, who had been
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 63
2009–2010 Tar Heels
% Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 64.1/64.5/57.9 Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Kyle Singler*, 6'8", SF, Jr.
5
3.60
Jon Scheyer*, 6'5", PG/SG, Sr.
28
3.17
Nolan Smith*, 6'2", PG/SG, Jr.
19
1.24
Brian Zoubek, 7'1", C, Sr.
25
1.24
Lance Thomas*, 6'8", PF, Sr.
20
0.96
Miles Plumlee, 6'10", C, So.
81
-0.05
Ryan Kelly, 6'9", PF, Fr.
14
–
Mason Plumlee, 6'10", C, Fr.
18
–
Andre Dawkins, 6'4", SG, Fr.
22 (’10)
–
assured in spring conversations that Williams had overcome his in-season transfer thoughts and would stay in Durham. Suddenly, looking ahead, the Blue Devils appeared extremely vulnerable. Junior wing Gerald Henderson had already jumped to the NBA Draft, and backup guard Marty Pocius had opted to bypass his final season of eligibility in favor of graduating and pursuing a professional career overseas. The Devils also missed two prep All-American senior guards on the recruiting trail.
Duke, which in some important ways (mainly NCAA Tournament and recruiting results) has been a shadow of its former self since its 2001 national championship, immediately faced the likelihood of entering the 2009–10 season with only two recruited guards on its active roster. That would be a fragile situation for any program, but especially for one that under Krzyzewski typically has used lineups consisting of four perimeter players around a single true post. Just as suddenly, however, an important piece surprisingly fell into place. Soon after the news broke about Williams’s transfer, high school guard Andre Dawkins, who had committed to Duke for the 2010–11 season, discovered that he had almost enough credits to enroll a full year earlier than expected. After passing a summer English class and receiving the NCAA’s stamp of approval, Dawkins (a good student who repeated a year of high school for basketball reasons) will be in Durham this fall, available as a much-needed backup to veterans Jon Scheyer and Nolan Smith. The revised Duke lineup looks like a potential ACC champion. Scheyer, an All-ACC candidate who attended Deron Williams’s point guard camp over the summer after switching to that position late last season, will man the backcourt with Smith and Dawkins. All-ACC forward Kyle
Although Carolina lost plenty of talent to the NBA, the Heels should still be near the top of the conference standings. 64 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Photo on previous page: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images Photo on this page: Nathaniel S. Butle /NBAE/Getty Images
Duke 2008-09 Record: 30-7 (11-5)
Sizing Up the Competition Singler, stuck in the post for his first two years, will take his natural place on the wing. Up front, the Devils will have plenty of size, strength, and experience in seniors Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek, plus plenty of promise in rookies Ryan Kelly and Mason Plumlee.
2. North Carolina Returning only 30% of their 2009 production, the Tar Heels hope that a highly regarded crop of freshmen will make an instant impact. Even with the loss of so much NBA talent, Carolina won’t drop below second in the league (if they drop that far).
3. Maryland Less than a year from retirement age, Gary Williams truly joined the Information Age. The 64-year-old coach opened a Twitter account in May, enabling him to share daily details of his life with online followers. “Most of the things I do aren’t all that interesting, so I wasn’t sure why anyone would want to know about it,” Williams said. “But some people talked me into [Twitter], and we’ve been having some fun with it.” Nevertheless, don’t expect Williams to change from his old-school ways on the court. The foundation of his Maryland program, now in its 21st year, remains built upon hard-nosed defense, the flex offense, and unselfish play, along with plenty of high-energy, wear-it-on-your-sleeve passion from the sidelines. The Williams era in College Park can be broken neatly into three parts. From 1989–90 through 1992–93, in the aftermath of NCAA sanctions, the Terps struggled to a 61–57 record, had four straight losing seasons in ACC play, and made only a single NIT appearance. From 1994–2003, Williams produced an NCAA Tournament anchor and one of the most consistent winners in the nation, finishing .500 or better in conference play for ten straight seasons, advancing
Maryland 2008-09 Record: 21-14 (7-9) % Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 86.1/81.5/94.9 Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
93
3.23
Eric Hayes*, 6'4", PG, Sr.
–
1.84
Landon Milbourne*, 6'7", PF/SF, Sr.
–
1.44
Adrian Bowie*, 6'2", SG, Jr.
–
1.26
Greivis Vasquez*, 6'6", PG/SF, Sr.
Cliff Tucker, 6'6", SF, Jr.
–
0.66
50
0.50
Dino Gregory, 6'7", PF, Jr.
–
0.04
Jordan Williams, 6'9", C, Fr.
–
–
James Padgett, 6'8", PF, Fr.
–
–
Sean Mosely, 6'4", SG/SF, So.
to seven Sweet 16s, going to two straight Final Fours, and capturing the 2002 national championship. The last six seasons have been a mixed bag for the Terps, and a huge drop-off from their recent heyday. Three NCAA appearances were surrounded by three NIT bids. Only once did they finish above .500 in ACC play. All three of their NCAA trips, including last year’s, ended in the second round. Thanks to a promising blend of talent and experience, this year’s Maryland team has a great chance to be Williams’s best since his NCAA title group, which was led by seniors Juan Dixon and Lonny Baxter, and junior Steve Blake, and had an eight-man rotation filled with upperclassmen. Williams’s defensive principles, along with the intricacies of the flex offense, can take a long time to absorb, but the 2009–10 Terps will be off to a running start from the opening practice. At least six juniors and seniors will be a part of the regular rotation, giving Maryland one of the most experienced teams in the nation. Interchangeable senior guards Greivis Vasquez (who bypassed the NBA Draft at the last minute in the spring) and Eric Hayes both can handle the ball and score. Meanwhile, versatile senior forward Landon Milbourne is expected to move from the post to his natural position on the wing, as long as freshman big men James Padgett and Jordan Williams can become adequate defenders and rebounders quickly. “We have a team that can compete for the ACC championship,” Williams said. “We still have to prove that, obviously, but I think we can be that good.”
4. Clemson Oliver Purnell’s 21-year track record as a head coach is crystal clear: He very, very rarely takes steps backward as he builds a program. Given that Purnell last year joined Cliff Ellis and Rick Barnes as the only men ever to take Clemson to the NCAA Tournament in back-to-back seasons, the 2009–10 campaign should be another very interesting one for the Tigers. At Radford, Purnell went from 15–13 to 22–7 over three seasons. At Old Dominion, he went from 15–15 to 21–10 over three seasons. At Dayton, he went from 7–20 to 24–6 over nine seasons. Purnell is entering his seventh campaign at Clemson, where his record improved from 10–18 to 16–16 to 19–13 to 25–11 before the NCAA breakthroughs of 2008 (24–10, 10–6 ACC) and 2009 (23–9, 9–7), when the Tigers finally got to watch the Selection Sunday festivities wondering about their destination rather than their invitation. The next step for Clemson, and for Purnell in particular, is obvious: postseason success. The Tigers have never won the ACC Tournament or reached the Final Four. Meanwhile, Purnell has become a serious contender for one of those tags that’s half-compliment, half-insult, like “best golfer without
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 65
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Clemson
5. Georgia Tech
2008-09 Record: 23-9 (9-7) % Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 54.9/62.2/72.0 Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Trevor Booker*, 6'7", PF, Sr.
–
4.51
Demontez Stitt*, 6'2", PG, Jr.
–
1.74
Jerai Grant, 6'8", C, Jr.
–
1.31
Andre Young, 5'9", PG, So.
–
0.94
Tanner Smith, 6'5", SG, So.
–
0.38
David Potter, 6'6", SF, Sr.
–
0.14
Milton Jennings, 6'9", PF, Fr.
21
–
Noel Johnson, 6'6", SG/SF, Fr.
42
–
Devin Booker, 6'8", C, Fr.
86
–
a major championship” and “best coach without a Super Bowl ring.” Purnell’s title? “Best coach without an NCAA Tournament victory.” It’s hard to believe, given his overall success, but it hasn’t happened yet. All of those hurdles became more difficult to clear in May, when sharp-shooting wing guard Terrence Oglesby stunned his coaches by passing up his two remaining seasons of eligibility in favor of pursuing a professional career in Europe. A native of Norway who played for that country last summer in the Under-20 European Championships, Oglesby is the son of a former pro basketball player. The family believes that Terrence’s Norwegian passport will give him added value overseas, where many leagues have strict caps on the permissible number of Americans on the roster. Even without Oglesby, whose poor defense and erratic decision-making sometimes negated his offensive contributions and seemingly limitless confidence, the Tigers have the look of a potential contender. Leading the way will be senior big man Trevor Booker, a top candidate for ACC Player of the Year. The league’s best rebounder (almost 10 per game) and field goal shooter (57.1%) and second-leading shot blocker last season at only 6'7", he also is a dangerous scorer (15.3 ppg) and one of the nation’s most intense players. Booker honed his skills over the summer as a part-time starter for the bronze medal-winning US team at the World University Games. The answers to two questions likely will determine the difference between good and great for Clemson this season. In the absence of Oglesby and the graduated K.C. Rivers, are Demontez Stitt, David Potter, Tanner Smith, and Andre Young ready for bigger roles? And how quickly will the Tigers’ highly-touted recruiting class, led by prep All-American forward Milton Jennings, high-energy post player Devin Booker (Trevor’s brother), and offensively creative wing Noel Johnson, be ready to perform at the ACC level?
66 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Call this season “Back to the Future” at Georgia Tech. The Yellow Jackets will wear throw-back uniforms in 2009–10, to commemorate the anniversaries of three special seasons: 1960, when Tech (then a member of the SEC) earned its first NCAA Tournament bid; 1985, when coach Bobby Cremins led a team with Mark Price, John Salley, and Bruce Dalrymple to the program’s first ACC championship; and 1990, when the famous “Lethal Weapon 3” combination of Kenny Anderson, Dennis Scott, and Brian Oliver carried the Jackets to another ACC title and their first Final Four. That’s the back part. The future? While in the midst of an absolutely disastrous 2008–09 season (12–19, 2–14 ACC), Tech coach Paul Hewitt managed to sign a six-man recruiting class ranked among the top ten in the nation. Derrick Favors, a 6'10" post player, has NBA lottery pick written all over him. Point guard Mfon Udofia and wing guard Glen Rice, Jr. (son of the former Michigan and NBA star) are also expected to join the rotation right away. The newcomers are far from the only reasons for optimism in Atlanta. “Everybody likes to talk about the freshmen, and we’re excited about them, too,” Hewitt said. “But we know that the most important things that have happened to this program are D’Andre Bell being cleared and Gani Lawal coming back to school.” Bell, a versatile senior who can play anywhere on the perimeter and ranks as one of the ACC’s top defenders, missed last season after being diagnosed with a rare spinal condition. (Doctors gave him the green light in May.) Lawal, a junior who averaged almost a double-double (15.1 ppg, 9.5 rpg) a year ago, turned down a realistic chance of being a first-round NBA selection in the spring.
Georgia Tech 2008-09 Record: 12-19 (2-14) % Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 65.8/68.8/78.4 RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Gani Lawal*, 6'9", PF, Jr.
Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
18
2.52
Iman Shumpert*, 6'5", PG/SG, So.
22
1.78
–
0.63
Maurice Miller, 6'2", PG, Jr.
88
0.38
Brad Sheehan, 7'0", C, R-Jr.
–
0.17
Nick Foreman, 6'3", SG, So.
–
-0.35
–
-0.48
Zachery Peacock*, 6'8", PF, Sr.
Lance Storrs, 6'5", SF, Jr. D’Andre Bell, 6'6", SF, R-Sr.
Redshirted in 2008
Derrick Favors, 6'10", C, Fr.
1
–
Mfon Udofia, 6'2", PG, Fr.
34
–
Glen Rice, Jr., 6'5", SG, Fr.
91
–
Sizing Up the Competition With sophomore combo guard Iman Shumpert, junior point guard Maurice Miller, and senior forward Zachery Peacock also back, Hewitt may find himself going from the headache of trying to find five dependable players, as was the case last year, to the challenge of finding enough playing time for everybody. Hewitt, 46, has an extremely unusual resume at this stage of his career. He’s the third-youngest head coach in the ACC, behind only Miami’s Frank Haith (43) and Virginia’s Tony Bennett (40). Yet Hewitt has the fourth-longest tenure (entering his tenth season) among the league’s head coaches, behind Duke’s Krzyzewski (30), Maryland’s Williams (21), and Boston College’s Al Skinner (13). Here’s another oddity. Hewitt took the Yellow Jackets to the NCAA championship game in 2004—that’s Roy, Gary and K territory—but his best ACC finish after nine seasons is 9–7, he’s never won an ACC title, and he’s won just one other NCAA Tournament game outside of that 2004 run.
6. Wake Forest If you made a list of basketball-specific matters and asked ACC coaches, fans, and media to offer their insights, the coaches would come out best about 99% of the time. Occasionally, though, coaches have blind spots, and one of the most common blind spots in modern-day college hoops has to do with early NBA entry. For whatever reason— perhaps it’s a parallel to the old saying about “failing to see the forest for the trees”—everyone from Paul in Podunk to Billy the Beat Writer generally has a better track record of correctly anticipating the early exits of basketball stars than even the players’ coaches themselves. It happened at Duke with William Avery, Shaun Livingston, and Luol Deng. It happened at UNC with Jeff McInnis, Joseph Forte, and J.R. Smith. It happened at Wake Forest with Chris Paul. By the time the coaches caught up with most others and figured out these and similar situations, of course, it was far too late to react in a manner that would
Wake Forest 2008-09 Record: 24-7 (11-5) % Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 53.3/65.0/54.1
Photo: Steve Dykes/Getty Images
Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Al-Farouq Aminu*, 6'9", PF/SF, So.
7
2.25
Chas McFarland*, 7'0", C, Sr.
–
1.72
Ishmael Smith, 6'0", PG, Sr.
–
1.02
David Weaver, 6'11", C, R-Sr.
73
0.40
Tony Woods, 6'11", C, So.
41
0.23
L.D. Williams*, 6'4", SG, Sr.
–
0.09
Gary Clark, 6'4", SG, Jr.
–
0.08
Ari Stewart, 6'7", SF, Fr.
39
–
The immensely talented Al-Farouq Aminu should help Wake Forest compensate for the loss of two NBA first-rounders. help the following year’s teams. For better or worse, third-year Wake Forest coach Dino Gaudio will experience 2009–10 under exactly this type of cloud. Throughout last season, he insisted that his three star underclassmen—guard Jeff Teague, forward James Johnson, and forward Al-Farouq Aminu—were unlikely to make the NBA jump. Even after the NCAA Tournament, as NBA sources repeatedly suggested otherwise, Gaudio insisted that the big three and their families told him they were going to return to college. In the end, of course, only Aminu did. So go ahead and add this year’s Demon Deacons to the all-time “what-if” list. What if Jerry Stackhouse and Rasheed Wallace hadn’t left UNC as sophomores in 1995? What if Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison hadn’t left the Tar Heels as juniors in 1998? What if Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, and Jason Williams hadn’t departed Duke as juniors in 2002? The list of multi-man early exits is long and growing, and the Deacons’ Johnson-Teague pairing belongs. Johnson was the 16th pick in the June draft, and Teague went 19th overall.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 67
2009–2010 Tar Heels The cupboard certainly isn’t bare in Winston-Salem. Aminu might be a lottery pick in 2010. Each of the team’s four seniors—point guard Ishmael Smith (ball-handling), wing L.D. Williams (defense), and big men Chas McFarland (rebounding) and David Weaver (shot blocking)—already has established himself as a strong presence in at least one area. Perhaps junior college signee Konner Tucker can help with the team’s long-range shooting woes, or young big men Tony Woods and Ty Walker can take on larger roles. The Demon Deacons could be pretty good this season, or they could be one of those teams that proves to be worth less than the sum of its parts. That dichotomy turns the spotlight back onto Gaudio. The coach deserves credit for greatly improving the Deacons’ defense over the last two seasons, but he hasn’t yet been able to create an offensive identity for his program. He also didn’t win any friends in March, when he led a team with at least three future first-round NBA picks to a 15-point, opening-round NCAA loss to 13th-seeded Cleveland State.
have the ball in his hands, and that will be a huge advantage for the Hokies. Delaney will have help, too. Junior forward Jeff Allen, one of only four returning players who ranked among the top 20 scorers and top ten rebounders in the ACC last season, will get support in the frontcourt from high-flying junior J.T. Thompson and powerful sophomore Victor Davila. Delaney’s main partner in the backcourt will be junior Dorenzo Hudson, who showed signs late last season that he could become a solid scorer and a defensive ace. Junior swingman Terrell Bell and senior center Lewis Witcher also have significant experience. The Hokies will need at least some help from their fiveman freshman class, and that’s going to be a bit of a guessing game. Opinions vary greatly on swingman Manny Atkins, wing guard Ben Boggs, point guard Erick Green, forward Cadarian Raines, and center Gene Swindle (a red shirt). It will be up to Greenberg to find the right fits for the rookies, likely in complementary roles.
8. Boston College 7. Virginia Tech Last year, Florida State entered the season with a superstar point guard, an experienced supporting cast, and an extra-large freshman class, and the Seminoles turned that combination into the best season of the seven-year Leonard Hamilton era. This year, Virginia Tech would like to do the same, under similar circumstances, for seventh-year coach Seth Greenberg. Tech point guard Malcolm Delaney, a junior, emerged as an All-ACC player last season and enters 2009–10 as the top scorer (18.1 ppg) and free throw shooter (87%) among the league’s returning players. A creative ballhandler, driver, passer, and three-point shooter, he led the conference in average minutes played (36.9 per game) a year ago and will likely carry a similarly heavy load this time. In the final minutes of close games, Delaney will
Al Skinner may never be the most famous coach in the history of Boston College basketball, but he’s already the best. That’s one reason for optimism in Chestnut Hill, despite the graduation of star point guard Tyrese Rice. Skinner, whose team often gets lost in the shadow of the Boston area’s professional sports franchises, also can get overlooked in the Eagles’ own history books, despite his status as the program’s all-time victories leader (232–149). Former BC head coaches Bob Cousy (Boston Celtics), Chuck Daly (Detroit Pistons), Tom Davis (Iowa), and Gary Williams (Maryland) all are far more famous than Skinner, but for other aspects of their careers. So Skinner, now in his 13th year at The Heights, quietly continues to add to a resume that already includes a Big East championship, a consistent NCAA Tournament presence (seven bids in the last nine years), a Sweet 16 trip, and four top-25 finishes.
Virginia Tech
Boston College
2008-09 Record: 19-15 (7-9)
2008-09 Record: 22-12 (9-7)
% Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 65.6/66.1/63.0 Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
% Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 78.0/88.9/65.0
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
Malcolm Delaney*, 6'3", PG, Jr.
77
3.73
Joe Trapani*, 6'8", PF, Jr.
Jeff Allen*, 6'7", PF/C, Jr.
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
–
1.93
82
2.37
Rakim Sanders*, 6'5", SG, Jr.
69
1.85
J.T. Thompson, 6'6", SF/PF, Jr.
–
0.21
Cory Raji*, 6'6", SF, Jr.
–
1.68
Victor Davila, 6'8", C, So.
–
0.08
Reggie Jackson, 6'3", SG, So.
–
0.96
Terrell Bell, 6'6", SF, Jr.
–
0.05
Josh Southern*, 6'10", C, Jr.
–
0.78
Lewis Witcher, 6'9", C, Sr.
–
-0.12
Biko Paris, 6'1", PG, Jr.
–
0.43
Dorenzo Hudson*, 6'5", SG, Jr.
67
-0.40
Tyler Roche, 6'7", SF, Sr.
–
-0.09
Cadarian Raines, 6'9", PF, Fr.
95
–
Cortney Dunn, 6'8", C, Jr.
–
-0.29
68 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Sizing Up the Competition Entering 2009–10, Skinner has one advantage over the rest of the ACC. He is returning four players who started every game last season. A quartet of juniors, wing Rakim Sanders, forward Corey Raji, power forward Joe Trapani, and center Josh Southern give the Eagles a firm foundation. Senior wing Tyler Roche and junior power forward Cortney Dunn also have been around long enough to understand their complementary roles and embrace Skinner’s unrelenting demands for mental and physical toughness. Sophomore wing guard Reggie Jackson may also be ready for a major contribution. Complicating the Eagles’ task are significant question marks at the two hardest-to-fill spots in any program: point guard and the post. Junior Biko Paris must be ready to handle the adjustment of going from about 12 minutes per game as Rice’s backup to more than twice that much playing time, and a lot more responsibility, as a starter. Also, BC could be inconsistent offensively because of the lack of a low-post scorer. Trapani is the team’s only big man with any scoring touch, and he does most of his work from mid-range and on three-pointers.
9. Florida State Since the expansion of the NCAA Tournament to 64 teams in 1985, Florida State’s Leonard Hamilton is the only ACC coach to go six straight seasons without an NCAA bid and keep his job in the aftermath. FSU was rewarded for its patience last season, when the Seminoles made their first March Madness appearance since 1998, ending the longest NCAA drought in the conference. Now Hamilton has a new challenge: figuring out how to win without point guard Toney Douglas, whose amazing senior season in 2008–09 allowed him to take a place next to Dave Cowens (1970), Ron King (1972), and Al Thornton (2007) as one of the most decorated players in the history of FSU hoops. Douglas was the Seminoles’
Florida State 2008-09 Record: 25-10 (10-6) % Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 56.9/72.4/71.4
Photo: Rex Brown/Getty Images
Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Solomon Alabi*, 7'1", C, R-So.
27
1.96
Chris Singleton*, 6'9", SF, So.
14
1.19
Derwin Kitchen*, 6'4", PG, Jr.
63
1.19
Xavier Gibson, 6'11", C, So.
55
0.38
Ryan Reid, 6'9", PF, Sr.
–
0.31
Luke Loucks, 6'5", PG, So.
–
-0.03
Deividas Dulkys, 6'5", SG, So.
–
-0.13
Jordan DeMercy, 6'7", SF, Jr.
–
-0.13
Michael Snaer, 6'4", SG, Fr.
17
–
Solomon Alabi, Florida State’s 7’1” center, is just one of many imposing post presences in the 2009-10 ACC. best defender, leading scorer, top assist man, and most accurate long-range shooter, and he’ll be extremely difficult to replace. There is some impressive talent still on hand. Solomon Alabi, a 7'1" sophomore center who led the ACC in blocked shots last season, already has the attention of NBA scouts. Hamilton’s last two recruiting classes each had a McDonald’s All-American, with sleek forward Chris Singleton joining the Seminoles a year ago and high-scoring guard Michael Snaer arriving this year. Senior center Ryan Reid is a physical rebounder and defender, and the FSU coaches love the potential of sophomore power forward Xavier Gibson. Junior forward Jordan DeMercy gets after opponents defensively on the wing. The key to the Seminoles season likely will be how their reconfigured backcourt performs without Douglas doing the overwhelming majority of the work, especially at crunch time. The ball-handling responsibilities will fall to junior Derwin Kitchen and sophomore Luke Loucks, while Snaer
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 69
2009–2010 Tar Heels and sophomore wing guard Deividas Dulkys will be asked to provide some scoring punch.
10. Virginia
Virginia 2008-09 Record: 10-18 (4-12) % Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 90.9/90.5/95.4 Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
33
2.42
Mike Scott*, 6'8", PF, Jr.
–
1.40
Jamil Tucker, 6'9", PF, Sr.
66
0.75
Calvin Baker*, 6'2", SG/PG, Sr.
–
0.73
Sammy Zeglinski*, 6'0", PG, R-So.
–
0.59
68
0.07
Jerome Meyinsse, 6'9", C, Sr.
–
-0.01
Assane Sene*, 7'0", C, So.
–
-0.02
Mustapha Farrakhan, 6'4", SG, Jr.
–
-0.12
Solomon Tat, 6'5", SF, Sr.
92
-0.46
Tristan Spurlock, 6'8", SF, Fr.
67
–
Sylven Landesberg*, 6'6", SF, So.
Jeff Jones, 6'4", SG, Jr.
70 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Virginia’s Sylven Landesberg has the ability to score from all over the court. of the top nine) scorers from a year ago, and Bennett received praise in recent years from UCLA legend John Wooden for getting more out of his talent than any other Pac-10 coach. Leading the way at UVA will be sophomore guard Sylven Landesberg, who averaged 16.6 points per game last season as the ACC’s Rookie of the Year, and junior power forward Mike Scott. Four other guards also have significant playing experience.
11. Miami Of the ACC’s 12 head coaches, only Miami’s Frank Haith took his current position without any previous head coaching experience at the either the NBA or major college level. In a sense, then, Haith has had to “grow up” as a head coach in the sometimes sizzling spotlight of the nation’s most publicized college basketball league, against the most challenging competition the college game has to offer.
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
New Virginia coach Tony Bennett finished 17–16 at Washington State last season. That’s not typically the type of performance that results in a lucrative job offer from a higher-profile program, with a brand-new basketball facility, in a better conference, in a desirable college town, within a reasonable drive of some of the nation’s most fertile recruiting turf. Those modest results helped the Cavaliers keep their pursuit of Bennett a secret and made his hiring a major surprise to media and fans. But it was the coach’s complete resume and personal background that attracted UVA officials in late March after the dismissal of Dave Leitao. College basketball observers with longer memories recalled that Bennett—the 2006–07 Associated Press National Coach of the Year—had turned away serious interest from Indiana, LSU, and Marquette, among others, in recent years to remain at Washington State. Bennett, 40, immediately became the youngest coach in the ACC. His major basketball influences include his father Dick Bennett, the highly respected former coach at WSU and Wisconsin-Green Bay, and Wisconsin coach Bo Ryan. All three men have produced teams known for their rugged defense, crisp passing, and deliberate offense. During his three-year run of 69–33 at Washington State, Bennett’s best team played to an average score of 66–56. He does like his players to utilize the three-pointer, as one might expect from someone who still ranks as the NCAA’s career leader in threepoint percentage (49.7%). The new Virginia staff did not inherit an exceptional roster, but the Cavaliers do return their top six (and eight
Sizing Up the Competition
Miami
NC State
2008-09 Record: 19-13 (7-9)
2008-09 Record: 16-14 (6-10)
% Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 44.9/56.1/37.2 Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class Dwayne Collins*, 6'8", PF/C, Sr. James Dews, 6'4", SG, Sr.
% Returning Pts./Reb./Asst.: 44.7/39.2/55.0
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
Name (*Returning Starter), Ht., Pos., Class
–
2.83
Tracy Smith*, 6'8", C, Jr.
RSCI Rank
WORP/35
63
1.72
–
0.52
Dennis Horner, 6'9", SF/PF, Sr.
–
0.87
Cyrus McGowan*, 6'9", PF, Sr.
84
0.43
Javier Gonzalez*, 5'11", PG, Jr.
–
0.86
Adrian Thomas, 6'7", PF/SF, Sr.
93
0.18
Julius Mays, 6'2", SG/PG, So.
–
0.49
21
-0.18
Farnold Degand, 6'3", PG, Sr.
–
0.19
Johnny Thomas, 6'5", SF, R-So.
–
0.09
–
0.03
DeQuan Jones, 6'7", SF, So. Malcolm Grant, 6'1", PG, So.
(Transfer Villanova)
Durand Scott, 6'3", SG, Fr.
33
–
C.J. Williams, 6'5", SF, So.
Donnavan Kirk, 6'9", PF, Fr.
89
–
Richard Howell, 6'7", PF, Fr.
60
–
DeShawn Painter, 6'9", PF, Fr.
80
–
–
–
It hasn’t been easy, and it won’t be any easier for UM this season without star guard Jack McClinton, who graduated and moved on to the NBA as one of the most successful transfers (he started his career at Siena) in the history of ACC hoops. If Haith is going to improve his five-year resume (88–73 overall, two NIT trips, one NCAA bid) with the Hurricanes in 2009–10, he’ll need a bunch of his returning players to grow up quickly, and it would help to experience another successful transfer story, too. Senior power forward Dwayne Collins, who tested the NBA waters in the spring but received lukewarm feedback, must turn his previous flashes of dominating play into more consistent production. Senior wing guard James Dews and senior wing forward Adrian Thomas have hit some big shots for the Hurricanes, but now they’ll have to do so more often, and without McClinton attracting most of the defense’s attention. UM also needs the performance of sophomore wing forward DeQuan Jones to catch up to his considerable potential. Miami’s grow-up-quickly theme also fits perfectly with its class of six newcomers. In particular, Villanova transfer Malcolm Grant (who practiced with the team last season) wants to follow in McClinton’s footsteps and help right away as an explosive combo guard. All four incoming freshmen— guards Garrius Adams, Antoine Allen, and Durand Scott, plus power forward Donnavan Kirk—also have the talent to make positive impacts, but who will be ready quickly is difficult to predict. The Hurricanes also hope super-sized center Reggie Johnson (6'9", 296) can help, after slimming down during a redshirt year.
Scott Wood, 6'6", SG/SF, Fr.
Lowe’s first team in Raleigh had absolutely no depth. His second team had absolutely no chemistry. His third team, last season, represented only a slight improvement. Their combined results: 51–46 overall, 15–33 in the ACC, one NIT bid, and no discernible style of play. That’s almost enough to make Pack fans yearn for Herb Sendek, who won 25 games at Arizona State last season and earlier this year received a lucrative contract extension. Almost. While Lowe is only one year away from competing with a team that consists entirely of his own recruits, that’s not necessarily a good thing. His highest-profile signee, center J.J. Hickson, left for the NBA after only one season. His other elite-level signee, guard Lorenzo Brown, failed to qualify academically this summer and is spending 2009–10 in prep school. In terms of proven college talent, the Wolfpack is looking up at every other team in the ACC. None of its returnees averaged even 21 minutes per game a year ago. If the Pack is going to climb the conference ladder this season, a handful of best-case scenarios will have to come to fruition. Junior power forward Tracy Smith must continue to evolve as a dangerous low-post scorer. Junior Javier Gonzalez and senior Farnold Degand must finally stabilize the point guard position for Lowe, the star point guard on NC State’s 1983 national champions. Senior forward Dennis Horner, sophomore wing C.J. Williams, and sophomore guard Julius Mays must upgrade their offensive production. Finally, State will need significant contributions from a solid freshman class led by power forward DeShawn Painter, power forward Richard Howell, and wing shooter Scott Wood. MSP
12. NC State With the exception of one memorable weekend, when the Wolfpack went from a lowly #10 seed to the championship game of the 2007 ACC Tournament, the Sidney Lowe era at NC State has been mostly miserable. Looking to the immediate future, it’s difficult to envision a major improvement.
David Glenn is the editor and publisher of ACCSports.com, a recently re-launched website with more than 30 regular contributors, and the ACC Sports Journal, a popular bi-weekly magazine that has covered the ACC for more than 30 years. He also hosts a daily, ACC-oriented sports radio show that recently became syndicated throughout North Carolina, and he makes more than 500 radio appearances annually around the ACC region.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 71
2008-2009 +/- STATISTICS INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS Player
Min.
Pace
Pts-Pts All.
On-C/ Off-C
Off. On-C/ Off-C
eFG%
FTA Rate
OR%
TO%
Def. On-C/ Off-C
eFG%
FTA Rate
DR%
Lawson
1048
75.2
2493-1875
+21.9
+20.7
55.3
39.7
39.9
15.0
+1.2
47.0
23.7
66.4
22.3
Ellington
1155
74.9
2699-2084
+16.0
+23.1
54.9
39.2
39.7
14.8
-7.1
48.0
23.7
65.6
22.4
TOF%
Green
1040
74.6
2412-1872
+12.9
+12.0
53.8
39.2
40.1
15.0
+0.9
46.9
24.4
67.0
22.0
Thompson
943
75.1
2150-1663
+10.4
+6.1
53.8
35.7
39.1
15.2
+4.3
46.5
21.7
66.8
22.5
Hansbrough
1029
74.7
2373-1841
+6.5
+12.4
54.6
41.9
39.3
15.9
-5.9
48.7
21.3
67.9
21.6
Davis
716
74.7
1576-1282
+0.9
-0.4
54.5
38.8
39.5
17.9
+1.3
44.4
28.4
68.8
19.0
Graves
224
77.6
481-383
+0.4
-8.5
52.7
39.2
40.2
20.2
+8.9
41.6
40.1
74.2
21.6
TEAM
1525
75.2
3413-2735
0.0
0.0
53.3
39.2
39.2
16.3
0.0
46.6
25.4
67.8
20.9
Frasor
662
73.9
1377-1179
-11.4
-11.9
50.8
41.2
38.1
18.6
+0.5
46.0
27.7
70.0
20.1
Drew II
364
74.7
705-603
-13.6
-15.5
51.8
38.9
35.0
20.8
+1.9
44.9
32.1
74.6
18.8
Zeller
117
72.2
215-203
-17.1
-18.1
44.0
30.6
42.0
18.1
+1.0
50.3
25.6
75.7
23.3
BACKCOURT STATISTICS Player
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
eFG%
FTA Rate
OR%
TO%
Def. Eff
eFG%
FTA Rate
DR%
TOF%
Lawson-Ellington
692.4
75.8
+34.4
128.8
56.8
37.4
39.9
14.0
94.4
47.2
22.8
65.9
23.0
Lawson-Frasor
346.4
74.0
+20.2
118.6
52.6
44.3
39.0
17.0
98.4
47.6
25.0
66.7
20.8
Drew II-Frasor
237.7
74.7
+15.0
103.2
51.3
39.3
33.5
22.7
88.2
42.1
35.2
77.2
19.0
Drew II-Ellington
102.4
74.0
+6.6
113.9
52.7
36.4
41.3
18.4
107.3
50.0
24.1
66.3
19.1
Frasor-Ellington
80.9
71.5
+6.5
109.9
42.1
34.3
45.7
13.5
103.4
50.0
17.6
61.0
21.6
FRONTCOURT STATISTICS Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
eFG%
FTA Rate
OR%
TO%
Def. Eff
eFG%
FTA Rate
DR%
Thompson-Hansbrough
Player
588.0
75.6
+24.8
122.1
54.4
39.3
37.3
15.2
97.4
50.1
17.4
67.7
TOF% 23.3
Hansbrough-Davis
327.1
73.9
+27.3
126.0
56.9
44.8
40.4
16.9
98.7
46.9
23.2
68.8
18.8
Thompson-Davis
295.0
74.3
+30.9
120.2
54.4
29.0
41.4
16.3
89.3
40.4
26.7
65.9
19.1
Green-Hansbrough
47.1
75.1
+29.6
135.9
52.1
87.5
42.2
8.8
106.4
51.6
65.6
58.5
23.1
Hansbrough-Zeller
45.6
69.7
+10.4
100.0
44.4
16.0
53.2
24.4
89.6
43.1
15.3
72.3
18.2
Thompson-Zeller
37.1
71.9
+30.2
109.4
44.4
28.6
43.2
12.5
79.2
45.2
26.9
71.4
30.2
Green-Davis
28.1
74.8
-4.2
93.1
50.0
14.3
37.5
29.7
97.3
50.0
50.0
69.2
27.5
Davis-Zeller
27.2
77.9
-22.4
96.1
44.4
69.4
25.9
17.3
118.5
68.9
45.9
89.5
22.2
BY POSITION Player
Min.
Pace
Net Eff.
Off. Eff.
eFG%
FTA Rate
OR%
TO%
Def. Eff
eFG%
FTA Rate
DR%
TOF%
PG: Lawson
1053.7
75.2
+30.1
125.3
55.3
39.7
39.9
15.0
95.2
47.0
23.7
66.4
22.3
Drew II
355.9
74.7
+12.9
107.0
51.8
38.9
35.0
20.8
94.1
44.9
32.1
74.6
18.8
Frasor
80.9
71.5
+6.5
109.9
42.1
34.3
45.2
13.5
103.4
50.0
17.6
61.0
21.6
SG: Ellington
858.8
75.2
+28.1
125.4
54.9
36.9
40.7
14.6
97.3
48.2
22.2
65.8
22.3
Frasor
585.9
74.3
+18.2
112.4
52.1
42.3
36.8
19.3
94.2
45.4
29.2
71.1
19.9
Green
9.9
74.1
-3.8
85.7
45.5
109.1
37.5
22.9
89.5
40.0
33.3
90.0
15.8
SF: Green
944.3
74.6
+27.6
122.7
54.0
37.3
40.1
15.2
95.1
47.0
21.2
67.2
21.6
Ellington
289.8
74.0
+24.4
122.2
54.7
46.5
36.3
15.4
97.8
47.3
28.4
64.9
22.8
Graves
188.2
77.1
+21.9
110.3
51.5
37.5
40.6
20.3
88.4
40.6
38.0
73.9
20.5
Ginyard
31.0
70.4
-2.2
108.1
46.4
64.3
40.0
25.2
110.3
54.1
20.4
60.7
20.6
PF: Thompson
920.1
75.0
+27.0
121.0
54.0
35.6
38.9
15.4
94.0
46.6
20.9
67.1
22.2
Hansbrough
372.7
73.4
+25.2
122.9
55.2
40.9
42.2
17.8
97.7
46.5
22.3
69.3
18.7
Green
96.2
75.3
+23.0
122.7
50.3
54.7
40.4
13.2
99.7
48.4
60.9
61.6
26.7
Graves
34.7
80.6
+32.8
118.9
59.5
48.3
37.5
19.6
86.1
47.9
53.2
75.8
27.7
Davis
27.2
77.9
-22.4
96.2
44.4
69.4
25.9
17.3
118.5
68.9
45.9
89.5
22.2
C: Davis
689.5
74.6
+25.7
119.6
54.9
37.8
40.1
18.0
93.9
43.6
27.9
68.3
18.9
Hansbrough
649.6
75.4
+25.4
123.0
54.2
42.4
37.7
14.8
97.6
50.0
20.6
67.0
23.3
Zeller
117.7
72.1
+7.5
102.1
44.0
30.6
42.0
18.1
94.6
50.3
25.6
75.7
23.3
Thompson
22.6
76.9
+36.4
125.8
47.9
38.3
41.9
6.7
89.4
37.9
65.5
52.4
35.3
Welcome to the Block Party A Preview of Carolina’s 2009–10 Defense by Corey Baker
T
yler Hansbrough graduated from the University of North Carolina as the most decorated player in the program’s illustrious history. Already a legend by his junior season, Hansbrough decided to forego professional aspirations for one last opportunity at a national championship. He succeeded, of course, and in the process set school records for rebounds, field goals made, and free throws attempted, a conference record for points scored, and an NCAA record for free throws made. Hansbrough was a three-time first-team consensus All-American and won the James Naismith Award as National Player of the Year in 2008, becoming only the third Tar Heel to do so. Not a shabby career for a small-town kid from southeastern Missouri. Yet, for all of his accomplishments and on-court skill, Tyler Hansbrough never demonstrated the ability to block shots at the college level. During his career, he averaged a
block for every 67 two-point shots attempted against the Tar Heels, with that number ballooning to one per every 91 shots attempted his junior and senior seasons. Comparatively, freshman Ed Davis blocked one of every 12 two-pointers attempted against the Heels last season. Admittedly, Davis is the best North Carolina shot-blocking presence (on a percentage basis) since Brendan Haywood. Nevertheless, the point remains: For the past four seasons, Tyler Hansbrough provided virtually no shot-blocking presence on the defensive end of the court. In 2009–10, things should be much different for North Carolina. Number 50 will be gone from his familiar spot in the defensive paint, replaced by a cadre of young talent bursting with shot-blocking potential. As mentioned, Ed Davis has already proven to be an excellent shot-blocker at the college level. While Tyler Zeller’s blocked-shot percentage
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 73
Even in playground-style All-American games, John Henson’s wingspan makes him a defensive presence. (Block%) was below average for a sevenfooter in limited minutes last season, his rate was still nearly three times that of Hansbrough (3.1% vs. 1.1%). Deon Thompson has been a consistently solid shotblocker throughout his career, and the incoming Wear twins are both 6'10" and could each be a defensive presence. Finally, the most heralded incoming recruit,
John Henson, spent last spring terrorizing high school opponents in Florida, averaging over six blocks per game and reaching double figures five times. While Henson’s offensive game may take time to mature (especially his wing skills), his length and quickness should translate to the college level immediately. Without question, this should be the best shot-blocking club of the Roy Williams era—a prediction that may forecast significant improvements in defensive performance as a whole. It should be no surprise that the most important part of excellent defense is to limit the number of points an opponent scores on an average attempt (otherwise known as forcing missed shots). This measure, known as defensive effective field goal percentage (defensive eFG%), strongly correlates to defensive efficiency. In fact, for all NCAA Division-I college basketball teams over the last three seasons, the correlation coefficient between defensive eFG% and defensive efficiency is a whopping 0.84 (where 1.0 indicates perfect correlation and 0 means no correlation). This means that, as defensive eFG% decreases, defensive efficiency decreases, remembering that a decrease in defensive efficiency (i.e., fewer points allowed per 100 possessions) suggests better defense. The only two other statistics that have correlation coefficients above 0.57 during that time are defensive two-point FG% and defensive three-point FG%, the individual components of defensive eFG%. Clearly, to be a successful defense, you must force plenty of missed shots. How, then, do defensive eFG% and blocked shots correlate? The answer is quite closely. During the same 2007–09 period, the national correlation coefficient between defensive eFG% and Block% is -0.58. A negative correlation coefficient means, essentially, that as one value goes up, the other goes down, so as block rate increases, defensive eFG% decreases.
Correlation Coefficient Matrix between Defensive Efficiency and Selected Defensive Factors National Data (all NCAA D-I teams) 2007-2009 Def. Eff.
eFG %
2Pt FG%
3Pt FG%
FT Rate
TOF %
DR %
True DR%
Block %
Steal %
Extra Eff Poss% Height
Def. Eff.
1.00
eFG%
0.84
2Pt FG%
0.75
0.92
3Pt FG%
0.63
0.70
0.37
FT Rate
0.12
0.18
0.18
0.11
TOF%
-0.28
0.15
0.20
-0.02
0.36
1.00
DR%
-0.45
-0.35
-0.40
-0.13
-0.12
-0.31
1.00
True DR%
0.57
0.32
0.35
0.14
0.01
-0.01
0.95
1.00
Block%
-0.46
-0.58
-0.63
-0.23
-0.17
-0.06
0.05
-0.03
Steal%
-0.28
0.06
0.12
-0.09
0.18
0.78
-0.28
0.04
0.13
Extra Poss%
-0.49
0.00
0.03
-0.08
0.32
0.91
0.12
-0.43
-0.04
0.69
1.00
Eff. Height
-0.28
-0.39
-0.42
-0.17
-0.21
-0.25
0.26
-0.19
0.45
-0.17
-0.15
1.00
Experience
-0.10
-0.05
-0.03
-0.07
-0.05
0.04
0.10
-0.12
-0.07
0.02
0.08
-0.08
74 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Exp.
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
Photo on previous page: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Sport Photo on this page: Doug Benc/Getty Images
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Welcome to the Block Party The 20 Best Shot-Blocking Teams in UNC History1 Season
Block%2
Leading Shot-Blockers (by Block%)
1. 1994
14.3
Wallace (7.9), Salvadori (7.3), Montross (5.1)
2. 2001
12.7
Haywood (12.1), Lang (2.5)
3. 1998
12.3
Ndiaye (6.5), Carter (3.1), Jamison (2.5) Wallace (8.6), Stackhouse (4.8), Zwikker (4.0)
4. 1995
12.2
5. 2009
11.7
Davis (8.2), Green (4.5), Thompson (3.9)
6. 2000
11.2
Haywood (7.7), Peppers (3.2), Lang (2.4)
7. 2003
11.2
J. Williams (3.2), Manuel (3.1), Noel (2.2)
8. 2007
11.1
Wright (6.3), Green (4.8), Thompson (3.5), Terry (2.9)
9. 1997
10.9
Zwikker (6.1), Carter (3.0), Jamison (2.0)
10. 2008
10.5
Stepheson (6.2), Thompson (6.0), Green (5.0)
11. 2004
10.5
May (4.7), McCants (2.2)
12. 1999
10.0
Haywood (5.9), Lang (1.9) May (3.9), McCants (2.6)
13. 2005
9.9
14. 2006
9.9
Green (6.5, Terry (3.5)
15. 1996
9.6
Zwikker (5.8), Carter (3.6), Jamison (3.5)
16. 1984
9.5
Perkins (4.4), Jordan (2.9), Daugherty (2.7)
17. 1992
9.5
Salvadori (11.2), Montross (3.4)
18. 1983
9.2
Martin (4.8), Perkins (4.3), Daugherty (3.4), Jordan (2.0)
19. 1993
8.8
Salvadori (8.8), Montross (4.0)
20. 1991
8.7
Montross (4.7), Chilcutt (3.1)
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
1. UNC began officially recording blocked shots as a statistic beginning in 1976. 2. Block% measures the percentage of opponents’ two-point attempts that are blocked. In the pre-3-point-era (1976-1982, 1984-86), it was assumed that 15% of all attempts were of 3-point range (and thus excluded from the block rate denominator). This is consistent with the rate that UNC’s opponents attempted 3-pointers during 1987—the first year that the arc was added nationally
Further anecdotal evidence of this relationship can be seen in the recent performance of the Connecticut Huskies. UConn has led the nation in Block% five of the past six seasons (just ask Digger “16 blocks!” Phelps). Accordingly, spearheaded by their paint intimidation, the Huskies led the nation in defensive eFG% over that six-year period. Simply put, defenses that block shots are much more effective at forcing missed shots than those that don’t. Unfortunately, setting expectations for UNC’s 2009–10 shot-blocking rate is a difficult exercise. One possible method for prediction is to use effective height, a measure of the average height of a team’s frontcourt. The average frontcourt height is determined by taking the weighted average of the tallest two players on the court at any one time (tallest 40% of a team’s total minutes). Obviously, there are instances when one of the two tallest players isn’t playing either power forward or center. Additionally, as “4-in, 1-out” sets become more common, power forwards are sometimes defending on the perimeter. Nevertheless, the metric is a sufficient proxy for frontcourt height. However, due to the unique skill sets of Ed Davis and Tyler Hansbrough, effective height may be inadequate for forecasting North Carolina’s shot-blocking prospects for the upcoming season. As discussed, Hansbrough’s meager shotblocking rate is extraordinary for his 6'9" stature. Similarly, as a freshman, Ed Davis blocked shots at a much higher than rate than the average 6'10" player. These two contrasting outliers make effective height a poor forecaster for North Carolina in
2009–10 because the team’s increase in effective height will probably understate its increase in Block%. Although a specific prediction is tough to make, it is reasonable for North Carolina fans to anticipate a substantial increase in shot-blocking rate this season. However, one shouldn’t expect the Tar Heels to become the “UConn of the South” in terms of defensive eFG%. While Roy Williams is a Hall of Fame coach, his teams have only once in the past 13 seasons ranked in the top 15 nationally in defensive eFG%. The best that a Williams-coached UNC team has done in this category is 36th, achieved by the 2004–05 NCAA champions. Last season, although the Tar Heels ranked 16th nationally in defensive efficiency, they ranked just 62nd in defensive eFG%. Much of that was due to the gambling nature of Williams’s defensive schemes. By overplaying the wings, pressuring the ball, and trapping in the half court, Williams has made the decision to allow a few easy hoops in exchange for forcing more
Enter the paint at your own peril when Ed Davis is on the court. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 75
2009–2010 Tar Heels The 15 Best Shot-Blocking Seasons in UNC History (> 10 MPG) Season (Class)
Height
Block%
1. W. Martin
Player
1986 (SR)
6'11"
12.7
2. B. Haywood
2001 (SR)
7'0"
12.1
3. K. Salvadori
1992 (SO)
6'11"
11.2
4. R. Wallace
1995 (SO)
6'10"
8.6
5. W. Martin
1985 (JR)
6'11"
8.3
T-6. E. Davis
2009 (FR)
6'10"
8.2
T-6 K. Salvadori
1993 (JR)
7'0"
8.2
8. R. Wallace
1994 (FR)
6'10"
7.9
9. B. Haywood
2000 (JR)
7'0"
7.7
10. K. Salvadori
1994 (SR)
7'0"
7.3
11. D. Green
2006 (FR)
6'5"
6.5
12. B. Wright
2007 (FR)
6'9"
6.3
T-13. S. Zwikker
1997 (SR)
7'2"
6.1
T-13. M. Ndiaye
1998 (SR)
6'9"
6.1
15. D. Thompson
2008 (SO)
6'8"
6.0
live-ball turnovers (the type which fuel Carolina’s transition attack and dictate the tempo Williams craves). UConn, conversely, plays a more passive defense, forces significantly fewer turnovers, and funnels the ball into its shot-blockers. So, while it is warranted to expect defensive eFG% improvements from the 2009–10 Heels, those expectations should be tempered with a dose of moderation due to considerations that are both systematic (i.e., Williams’s commitment to pressure defense) and personnel-based (i.e., relative lack of experience in a complicated defensive scheme). Tyler Hansbrough has been the face of the North Carolina program since the fall of 2005. Fittingly, no UNC basketball player will ever wear #50 again. Yet, Hansbrough’s game did have weaknesses, and his departure provides an opportunity for growth and transformation on the defensive end of the court. While the extent of this growth remains to be seen, increased playing time for Ed Davis and the presence of John Henson portends good things for Carolina fans. While the offense will certainly take a step back, this UNC team has a chance to create a defensive identify like no other in the Roy
Not since Brendan Haywood patrolled the paint have the Heels had a shot-blocking force like those found on the 2010 roster.
Def. Eff.
1.00
eFG%
0.77
1.00
2Pt FG%
0.63
0.92
1.00
3Pt FG%
0.55
0.55
0.21
FT Rate
-0.21
-0.07
0.00
0.01
1.00
TOF%
-0.25
0.22
0.29
0.14
0.74
1.00
DR%
0.02
0.37
0.34
0.11
-0.48
-0.22
1.00
Block%
-0.44
-0.62
-0.67
-0.29
-0.32
-0.51
-0.20
1.00
Height
-0.31
-0.51
-0.47
-0.23
0.15
-0.13
-0.29
0.48
Frontcourt Height
-0.49
-0.74
-0.74
-0.28
0.24
-0.17
-0.35
0.59
0.82
1.00
Experience
0.07
0.23
0.19
0.25
0.17
0.42
-0.02
-0.43
-0.07
-0.16
76 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
1.00
1.00 1.00
Corey Baker is a lifelong Tar Heel fan and general college basketball enthusiast. He is an omnipresent voyeur and sometime contributor to multiple online communities. In his spare time, Corey enjoys co-ed volleyball, attending live sporting events, and proudly donning his 1995 replica Jerry Stackhouse jersey. Corey currently resides in Chicago and works in information technology.
Photo: Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images
Williams era and has an outstanding chance to become the best shot-blocking squad in the program’s history—at least since 1976 when the statistic was first officially tracked. The next six months should be a fun ride for Carolina fans. And, like any good amusement park ride, you must be 81" or taller to enter UNC’s defensive paint this season. As many an opponent will learn Correlation Coefficient Matrix between Defensive Efficiency and Selected Defensive Factors the hard way, those who fail to Roy Williams’s Teams (1989-2009) meet this requirement will be 2Pt 3Pt FT Block Frontcourt Def. Eff. eFG% TOF% DR% Height Exp. FG% FG% Rate % Height rejected. MSP
Shooters Wanted A 2009–10 Offensive Forecast by Corey Baker
W
hen Roy Williams agreed to take the reins of the University of North Carolina basketball program, he brought along a system and the recruiting prowess necessary to build an offensive juggernaut. In each of Coach Williams’s six seasons at the helm, the Tar Heels have ranked in the top ten nationally in adjusted offensive efficiency. During that time, they have an average ranking of 3.8 and have led the nation on three separate occasions. Last year, North Carolina relied on an experienced lineup of offensive assassins to carry the university to its second national title in five seasons. Ty Lawson, Tyler Hansbrough, Wayne Ellington, and Danny Green were proficient, efficient, and relentless on the offensive end of the court, a fact clearly evidenced in the NCAA Tournament. Led by the talented foursome, the Tar Heels opened up at least a nine-point lead within the first ten minutes against each of their last four tournament opponents (Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Villanova, and Michigan State). These blitzkriegs provided UNC early cushions and workable margins for the remainder of the contests. In fact, except for one 47-second stretch against Villanova, no North Carolina opponent climbed within six points in the final 30 minutes of any of the last four games. It was a dominant performance catalyzed by a dominant offensive unit. Unfortunately for Williams and Carolina fans, Lawson, Hansbrough, Ellington, and Green have all departed for NBA glory. The remaining roster is talented but unproven, and lacks the dominant offensive presence provided by the upperclassmen in 2008–09. Further, the projected lineup augurs an offensive balance unlike any Tar Heel club of Williams’s tenure. The squad will feature an inexperienced backcourt supplemented by six highly-acclaimed post players, all 6’9” or taller and all best suited for play in the paint. The team has no proven perimeter threat, no proven offensive playmaker or goto scorer, and looks to be the worst free-throw shooting team in at least five seasons. Clearly, the Tar Heels will not replicate the offensive firepower that left so many opponents searching for answers last season. What then can North Carolina fans
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 77
expect from the offense this season? Is it possible that a dominating frontcourt, athletic backcourt, and overwhelming depth can overcome the apparent deficiencies in this year’s club? Could Roy Williams field yet another elite offensive unit? In order to define a reasonable outlook for the 2009–10 Tar Heels, we need to determine exactly why college basketball offenses are successful. In other words, we need to identify specific factors that correlate closely with offensive excellence. We then need to expand this analysis to specifically examine teams coached by Roy Williams. This expansion is to establish if the correlates of offensive success differ between Roy Williams’s clubs and the rest of college basketball. Finally, we need to apply the results of our analysis to the upcoming season, in the process providing a realistic expectation for the defending national champions. In this study, data from the last three seasons was analyzed for every NCAA Division-I college basketball team. The data, gathered from www.kenpom.com, measures offenses on a rate basis rather than raw number basis. For example, instead of looking at turnovers per game, all teams were ranked by their turnover rate, defined as the percentage of possessions that ended with a turnover. Measuring by rate eliminates the impact of pace of play and is thus more revealing than per-game statistics. The combined 2007–09 dataset was then correlated to offensive excellence as measured by unadjusted offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 possessions). This
Replacing this sweet stroke will be one of Roy Williams’s top priorities this season. 78 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
analysis produced correlation coefficients that measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between offensive efficiency and each individual variable. Correlation coefficients range from -1 (perfect linear negative relationship) to 1 (perfect linear positive relationship), with a 0 suggesting no linear relationship at all between two variables. A similar endeavor was undertaken for every Roy Williams-coached team (1989–2009). The correlation coefficients derived from both sets of analyses form the basis of the findings to follow. Twelve individual variables were collected and analyzed during the investigation to determine their effect on offensive efficiency. The factors considered were effective FG percentage (eFG%), two-point FG percentage (2Pt FG%), three-point FG percentage (3Pt FG%), free-throw percentage (FT%), raw offensive rebounding percentage (OR%), percentage of assisted field goals (A%), turnover percentage (TO%), free-throw rate (FT Rate), three-point FG attempt rate (3Pt FG Rate), effective experience, true offensive rebounding percentage (True OR%), and extra possession rate. The first nine variables should be commonplace to any fan familiar with tempo-free (pace-adjusted) stats or Ken Pomeroy’s site. For those new to pace-adjusted statistics, see the statistical glossary on page 14 for more description. The last three categories may be unfamiliar to all, and require further explanation. Effective experience is a weighted average measuring the seniority on a college basketball team. The metric multiplies each player’s class by his minutes played, sums across all players, and divides by total team minutes. Any player who steps on the court is factored as part of the effective experience score, with players who log more minutes carrying a larger weight. True OR%, measures the percentage of all possessions extended by an offensive rebound. Unlike raw OR% (which measures the percentage of offensive rebounds on missed shots only), True OR% is normalized to include possessions that end in turnovers and made shots. The result is a better gauge of the actual impact that offensive rebounding has on a team’s offensive profile. Finally, extra possession rate is a measure of the number of extra possessions a team receives by either limiting turnovers or grabbing offensive rebounds. The metric is derived by normalizing TO% and True OR% against the national average. The normalized components are then summed, resulting in a rate of possessions gained or lost when compared to the average college basketball team. It should be noted that OR% is not available for seasons prior to 1994 (for the Roy Williams analysis). Accordingly, the correlation analyses for OR%, True OR% and extra possession rate for Roy Williams’s teams contain data from 1995–2009. Of the 12 categories analyzed, five show small positive correlations with offensive excellence. These five categories
Photo on previous page: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images Photo on this page: Andy Lyons/Getty Images Sport
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Shooters Wanted Correlation Coefficient Matrix between Offensive Efficiency and Selected Offensive Factors— National Data (all NCAA D-I teams) 2007-2009 Off. Eff. Off. Eff.
eFG%
2Pt FG%
3Pt FG%
FT%
FT Rate
3PtA Rate
1.00
eFG%
0.84
1.00
2Pt FG%
0.74
0.89
1.00
3Pt FG%
0.67
0.77
0.42
1.00
FT%
0.45
0.37
0.26
0.38
1.00
FT Rate
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.07
1.00
3PtA Rate
0.13
0.25
0.15
0.19
0.14
-0.23
1.00
TO%
-0.63
-0.32
-0.24
-0.30
-0.28
0.18
-0.18 -0.35
True OR%
0.48
0.10
0.15
0.03
-0.03
0.19
A%
0.26
0.43
0.39
0.32
0.18
0.02
0.31
Extra Poss%
0.73
0.30
0.26
0.26
0.22
-0.07
0.00
Experience
0.17
0.14
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.05
0.02
the second highest correlation at 0.74. The two True Extra TO% A% Exp. OR% Poss% remaining variables that have meaningful correlations are turnover percentage (-0.63, a decrease in turnover rate suggests an increase in offensive efficiency) and extra pos1.00 session rate. Interestingly, -0.17 1.00 extra possession rate 0.00 -0.14 1.00 exhibits the third highest -0.91 0.57 -0.06 1.00 correlation coefficient at -0.17 0.03 0.05 0.16 1.00 0.73, significantly higher than either of its individual components. As was the case with true OR%, the national data provides validation that the statistic is a better gauge of possession management than either TO% or OR% alone. The national data demonstrates that offensive excellence in basketball can be achieved in myriad ways. Some teams dominate through superb ball movement and excellent shot selection, relying on high shooting percentages to drive their offensive efficiencies. A good example of such a team is Florida’s 2006 and 2007 repeat champions. Other clubs exploit mismatches in the paint to yield high 2Pt FG% and excellent OR%. The 2007 Georgetown Hoyas (led by Jeff Green and Roy Hibbert, and utilizing the Princeton offense) epitomized this type of attack. Still others excel by maximizing possessions through limiting turnovers and crashing the offensive boards. The 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers (with a steady veteran point guard in Levance Fields and a monster on the offensive glass in DeJuan Blair) are the archetype for the maximized possession model. Whatever the case, it is clear that individual factors vary amongst highly successful offensive teams.
are raw OR%, A%, effective experience, FT Rate, and 3PtA Rate. Each category has a correlation coefficient of 0.33 or less, indicating little to virtually no association with offensive efficiency. However, it should be noted that the lack of a strong nationwide correlation doesn’t indicate an effective offense can’t excel at these facets. Rather, lack of strong correlation indicates that excellence in these facets is not a requirement for an effective offense. Two variables show moderate positive correlations with offensive efficiency, each producing a correlation coefficient in the 0.40s: FT% (0.45) and true OR% (0.48). While expected, the fact that true OR% demonstrates a significantly stronger correlation than raw OR% validates its accuracy as a barometer of the true impact of offensive rebounding. The five remaining variables exhibit meaningful correlations to offensive success. It should be no surprise that the factor with by far the highest correlation coefficient is eFG%. Since most possessions end with field-goal attempts, teams that make a high percentage of them will almost always succeed offensively. While some parts of basketball can be complex to analyze, one Correlation Coefficient Matrix between Offensive Efficiency and Selected Offensive Factors simple truth remains: (Roy Williams’s Teams, 1989-2009) The team that puts the Extra 3PtA True Off. Eff. eFG% 2Pt FG% 3Pt FG% FT% FT Rate TO% A% ball through the hoop Rate OR% Poss% at the highest rate has a 1.00 Off. Eff. 0.70 1.00 eFG% great chance to win. 0.61 0.94 1.00 2Pt FG% It follows then 0.64 0.79 0.59 1.00 3Pt FG% that the components of 0.73 0.18 0.05 0.30 1.00 FT% eFG%—2Pt FG% and 0.18 0.36 0.41 0.16 -0.13 1.00 FT Rate 3Pt FG%—also show -0.04 -0.24 -0.20 -0.35 0.09 0.30 1.00 3PtA Rate a strong correlation to -0.68 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.67 0.14 -0.05 1.00 TO% offensive efficiency. 3Pt 0.51 0.24 0.14 0.29 0.49 -0.18 -0.42 -0.29 1.00 True OR% -0.18 0.24 0.15 0.30 -0.30 0.10 0.27 0.46 -0.53 1.00 A% FG% has a correlation 0.78 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.69 0.04 -0.16 -0.95 0.60 -0.66 1.00 Extra Poss% coefficient of 0.67, while 0.43 0.55 0.40 0.68 0.12 0.19 -0.35 -0.13 0.17 0.05 0.25 Experience 2Pt FG% demonstrates
Exp.
1.00
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 79
Like Master, Like Pupil—A Comparison of Offensive Statistics between Nevertheless, Dean Smith’s and Roy Williams’s Teams offensive excellence is Off. Eff. eFG% 2Pt% 3Pt% FT% FT Rate 3PtA Rate TO% OR% A% essentially achieved in Smith 3-Pt Era (1987-97) 115.0 55.3 54.5 38.8 69.5 38.1 23.1 20.7 39.7 60.1 two ways: by scoring Williams Career (1989-2009) 111.4 53.7 52.9 37.8 68.5 39.7 25.0 20.7 40.3 60.0 Williams UNC (2004-2009) 114.2 53.5 52.4 37.5 72.4 40.0 27.6 19.7 40.3 59.3 an exceptional amount of points per field goal attempt or by accumulating extra possessions through low exhibited a correlation coefficient of 0.78 between extra turnover and/or high offensive rebounding rates. Every offenpossession rate and offensive efficiency as compared to a 0.70 sive powerhouse doesn’t necessarily excel in both facets, but it between eFG% and offensive efficiency. Both variables are generally must excel in at least one, or be well above average in strongly correlated, but the difference in magnitude between both. The data is conclusive for the general college basketball Roy’s coefficients and those of the national college basketball population. What about for Roy Williams-coached teams: Are population (0.84 for eFG%, 0.73 for extra possession rate) is there specific factors that more closely determine offensive statistically significant. Still this difference, while meaningful, performance for his Kansas and UNC offenses? If so, what is only part of the story. does that portend for the Tar Heels this season? Shockingly, FT% has the second highest correlation The answer to the first question is a demonstrative “Yes!” coefficient to offensive performance of any variable for The answer to the second question is “Trouble with a capital Williams’s teams. Its coefficient of 0.73 is an increase of T,” although not for reasons that might be expected. nearly 0.30 over the coefficient for FT% among the average For the past 21 years, Roy Williams’s squads have D-I team (0.45). For Coach Williams’s teams, making free behaved a bit differently than the rest of college basketball. throws at a high rate is (slightly) more indicative of offensive As previously shown, for an average team, eFG% is clearly success than making field goals at a high rate. This conclusion the most important facet of offensive performance. However, flies in the face of the conventional wisdom in advanced basat both Kansas and North Carolina, eFG% has been just the ketball analysis, which states that eFG% is far and away the third most important aspect for a Roy Williams offense. For best indicator of a team’s offensive ability, since shooting field Williams’s teams, managing possessions is more important goals is easily the most common thing an offense does. Why than points per shot, as can be seen in the correlation coefmight this discrepancy exist for Roy Williams squads? ficients for eFG% and extra possession rate. Since his first It would be logical to assume that FT% acts as a proxy year as a head coach in 1989, Roy Williams’s teams have for overall shooting ability for a given offense. While that may seem intuitive, there is, in fact, very little correlation between FT% and either 2Pt FG% or 3Pt FG% at the national level. Further, for Roy’s clubs, the relationship is even weaker. Williams-coached teams have correlation coefficients between FT% and 2Pt FG% and FT% and 3Pt FG% of 0.05 and 0.23 respectively, both substantially lower than the national relationships (0.26 and 0.38). Curiously, Williams’s teams do exhibit a strong negative relationship between FT% and TO% (-0.67—as FT% increases, TO% decreases). It could be that the high-octane offense preferred by Roy Williams is most effective when executed by highly-skilled players with sound fundamentals, evidenced by low TO% and high FT%. The 2009 team was a perfect example—combining the lowest TO% (16.5%) and second highest FT% (75.6%) of any of Williams’s teams to form his most efficient offense (118.9). Lawson, Ellington, Green, and Hansbrough all fit the template of the experienced, highly-skilled player that thrives in Williams’s transition-driven system. This hypothesis of FT% serving as a proxy for skill and fundamental soundness in Roy Williams’s system is supported by the fact the correlation between FT% and TO% is much weaker for the general college basketball Larry Drew II must significantly improve his shooting for the Heels to compete nationally in 2010. population (-0.28) than for Roy’s teams. Whatever the case, the
80 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
2009–2010 Tar Heels
Photo: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images
Shooters Wanted data clearly indicates a strong relationship between FT% and offensive effectiveness for a Williams-coached offense. Unfortunately for North Carolina supporters, the Tar Heels project to be a relatively poor free-throw shooting team this season. Among returning players, only Marcus Ginyard can be considered a proven commodity at the line, and even he is inferior to last year’s “Big 4” in this regard. Deon Thompson improved his free-throw shooting as a junior, but still managed to shoot just 65% last season. Will Graves and Tyler Zeller both have potential, but have only 19 and 17 career attempts respectively. Sophomores Ed Davis and Larry Drew II shot a combined 55% last season. Some improvement should be expected (especially from Drew II who had a small sample size), but these guys have a long way to go. The incoming freshmen should be adequate, although John Henson struggled mightily at the line in high school and summer competition. Henson, who should draw fouls at a high rate with his length and athleticism, projects to be the Heels’ biggest liability at the line. Further, unlike last season, there is no coterie of 80% freethrow shooters to inflate the team’s percentage. The Tar Heels will almost certainly struggle at the line relative to Williams’s past teams (the past five have averaged 73.2% from the line, with each above 70%), and history suggests that the resulting struggles will impact offensive performance considerably. On a more positive historical note, Dean Smith’s three-point era UNC teams (his final 11 squads from 1987–97) did not demonstrate nearly the dependence on FT% that Williams’s teams do. While Coaches Smith and Williams have almost identical correlation coefficients between eFG% and offensive efficiency (0.69 and 0.70 respectively), FT% was a much less significant correlate for Smith’s teams (0.20 vs. 0.73). Nevertheless, there are silver linings in the gray cloud. Three-point shooting is substantially less important for Williams’s teams than for the general NCAA population. In fact, for his teams, increases in 3PtA Rate are slightly correlated to decreases in offensive efficiency (as opposed to a slight positive correlation at the national level). 3PtA Rate will almost certainly drop in 2009–10, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing in Williams’s pound-the-paint system. This is an enormous positive for a team that lacks proven perimeter threats. While 3Pt% is still an important correlate for offensive success on Williams’s teams (0.64), it is less important than at the national level (0.67). Further, Roy’s teams depend more on offensive rebounding (as measured by true OR%) than the average team, an area in which this year’s Heels should excel. Unfortunately, these two positives are somewhat offset by the increased importance of TO% to Williams’s offenses. The correlation coefficient for TO% for Roy Williams-coached teams is higher (-0.68) than the national average (-0.63). As discussed previously, this could be a result of his up-tempo style magnifying
Like Dean Smith before him, Roy Williams preaches that close attempts are higher percentage than three-point bombs. ball-handling and decision-making mistakes. Consequently, the onus is on Larry Drew II and Dexter Strickland to do an effective job of taking care of the basketball this season; Drew’s 40.6 Turnover Rate in 2008–09 doesn’t allow for much optimism (at least in comparison to Ty Lawson’s stellar 14.4). Combined, the lack of experienced ball-handlers and expected free-throw shooting issues should dampen offensive expectations for the 2009–10 Tar Heels. While North Carolina will almost certainly be in the pre-season top 10, past performances project this will be the worst offensive team in the seven-year Roy Williams era at UNC. Although the defense should be improved, it is doubtful this improvement can compensate for the predicted drop in offensive effectiveness. Adjust your outlook accordingly. The good news is that Carolina should still be a formidable and highly successful team in 2010—ten-point victories count just as much as 20-point ones in the conference standings. MSP Corey Baker is a lifelong Tar Heel fan and general college basketball enthusiast. He is an omnipresent voyeur and sometime contributor to multiple online communities. In his spare time, Corey enjoys co-ed volleyball, attending live sporting events, and proudly donning his 1995 replica Jerry Stackhouse jersey. Corey currently resides in Chicago and works in information technology
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 81
Recruiting and Player
Memories from the AAU Circuit The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly from Inside AAU Basketball by Jimmy Todds
I
t’s often been said that recruiting is the most vital component to a team’s success. That’s certainly true in college football, but even more so in college basketball. In basketball, one or two recruits can take a struggling, mediocre program and catapult it into a national championship contender. Imagine if Minnesota Timberwolves guard O.J. Mayo and Boston Celtics forward Bill Walker had opted for Florida A&M University instead of the University of Southern California and Kansas State University, respectively. The landscape of college basketball would’ve changed and a team like the Rattlers, who have never seriously competed for an NCAA title, would have been in the top 25. They’d receive national television time and could parlay Walker’s and Mayo’s stay on campus into a solid basketball program. That can’t happen in football. Coaches like Dean Smith, John Thompson, Lute Olson, Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams, and Mike Krzyzewski all are or were great collegiate coaches. However—you can ask them if you’d like—none of them would have had Hall of Fame careers if it weren’t for the extremely talented and gifted basketball players they were able to convince to attend their schools. While funny and kind of corny, the phrase “It’s not the Xs and Os, it’s the Jimmies and the Joes” is almost an absolute truth. And, in the modern world of college basketball recruiting, the most convenient way to find the Jimmies and Joes is through Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) competition during the summer. AAU basketball is unique in that, over the course of a single day or weekend, it allows coaches to evaluate the best players in the country, multiple times, against other top prospects. In addition to coaches, the bleachers at an AAU event are filled with a unique combination of scouts, talent evaluators, families, and ordinary (if super-passionate) college basketball fans. That’s
Development
REcruiting and player development
As Duke found out in 2003, you don’t want to turn Raymond into “AAU Felton.” 84 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Naturally, during Memorial Day weekend in 2001, we went to the Bob Gibbons Tournament of Champions held in Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Durham every year. One of the first players I saw was Amare Stoudemire. I forget which team he was with, but I remember thinking he wasn’t all that good. “This guy doesn’t really do anything but hang out in the paint,” I told a friend. “I don’t see what all the hoopla is about. There is no reason he should go straight to the NBA.” Many of the names of the players I watched at that particular event escape me now, but that single AAU tournament started a compulsion and borderline addiction that has lasted for nearly a decade.
The Curse of the Big Man My first few years at UNC weren’t exactly the golden age of Tar Heel hoops. My freshman year, shortly after the Heels won 18 straight games to climb to #1 in the country, Carolina got destroyed by Duke at home in the season finale, again a week later in the ACC championship game in Atlanta, and then lost in the second round of the NCAA Tournament to upstart Penn State. Then came sophomore year and 8–20—that’s all I have to say about that (and all you want to read about it, I’m sure). Needless to say we were starved for something good to happen and, earlier that year, the verbal commitments of Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants were those good things. While I might be biased, Felton, still, is probably the best high school point guard I’ve ever seen. There was regular Felton and then there was what we called “AAU Felton.” Regular Felton was an ordinary high school player, who was certainly talented and gifted. He utilized his skills well, was a great guy, and loved playing the game. But sometimes, after an opposing player had upset him, AAU Felton decided to show up. AAU Felton was the exact opposite of regular Felton. AAU Felton was determined to make defenders submit. He could just as easily hit a fade-away three-pointer while falling out of bounds as he could a wide-open dunk. Most Carolina fans were probably introduced to AAU Felton during the 2003 Duke game in Chapel Hill (Felton’s freshman year, and the infamous “Doherty Shove” game). After being scratched and bloodied on a predictably dirty play by Dahntay Jones, Felton took over the game down the stretch and willed an undermanned UNC squad to victory. I covered the South Carolina state championship during Felton’s senior year. In that game, Raymond’s Latta squad faced H.K. Tyler High School, a team with taller and more talented players. Felton jumped center and Latta trailed much of the first half. That is, until one of the H.K. Tyler players basically showed up Felton. AAU Felton emerged.
Photo on previous page: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Sport Photo on this page: Craig Jones/Getty Images
where my first experiences with college recruiting started. Forgive the long-winded explanation, but not everyone follows basketball recruiting as rabidly as the diehards on InsideCarolina.com’s premium message board. I’m a 27-year-old, native North Carolinian and, of course, there is nothing like Tar Heel basketball. We grow up loving it and die wishing we could stay with it just a tad bit longer. While there has never been a shortage of media coverage on UNC basketball, it wasn’t until the early 2000s—my college years—that recruiting really blew up into the massive and lucrative business that it is today. For most of my life, the recruiting news was a sports brief on an inside page of the local paper. I’ll never forget the headline “Philadelphia’s Wallace Chooses Heels” in the Fayetteville Observer-Times (now the Fayetteville Observer). I’d look forward to each October as a child to find out who Coach Smith was bringing in. I heard rave reviews about this dynamic point guard named King Rice, this super-versatile forward named Cliff Rozier, and this amazingly athletic wing forward who was the next Michael Jordan, Vince Carter. During my first few weeks as a student in Chapel Hill, Jason Parker didn’t enroll at North Carolina and it was kind of a big deal. I scoured the internet looking for information and came upon UNCbasketball.com. The site had all kinds of recruiting information, profiles, and reports from tournaments that I didn’t even know existed. Eventually one of my best friends and I started to get into it. We were among the first—if not the first—to coordinate signs, sheets, and chants for incoming recruits. As the obsession grew, we decided to start attending events.
Memories from the AAU Circuit
Photo top-left: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Photo bottom-right: Ronald Martinez/Getty Images
The always demonstrative Rashad McCants was the consummate AAU showman. Six three-pointers and 20 points later, Felton had singlehandedly given Latta the lead and a state championship. AAU Felton struck fear into the hearts of all defenders while, usually, willing his team to victory over much more talented collections of opponents. McCants was just the opposite. At Peach Jam in North Augusta, SC, possibly the best AAU event because of both the venue and the fact that college coaches can be in attendance, McCants, along with Justin Gray and the Charlotte Royals, had a good showing. McCants was a character who was just as good at making coaches smile as he was at knocking down three-pointers. In one game, McCants was dominating, as usual, against Kendrick Perkins and Houston Hoops. In that game, McCants scored at will from all over the court, guarded Perkins from time to time, and even blocked the shot of a young sophomore, Daniel Gibson. At the end of the game, there was a hard foul by one of Houston’s players on a Charlotte player. They hit the ground and, of course, the sweat needed to be cleaned up. Out comes McCants with a broom, a towel, and a smile to wipe off the court. At that same Peach Jam event, there was a power forward from Bloomington, IN who dominated another power forward from Oklahoma. The former, Sean May, did everything in a win over Shelden Williams’s (the latter) Athletes First team. May hit threes, demonstrated great footwork, displayed soft hands, and was pretty much the ideal power forward. In the game we watched, North Carolina coaches Matt Doherty
and Doug Wojcik were in attendance, as well coaches from Indiana, Duke, Marquette, Kansas, Illinois, and Florida. The common belief was that because his father, Scott May, had gone to Indiana that Sean May would end up there too. A well-respected Carolina fan and writer said after the game, “He is the prototypical power forward. If I had to choose any big man from this class, I’d take him.” Three months later, thanks to a big assist from Phil Ford, May committed to Carolina, thus ending Doherty and UNC’s recruiting flameouts with respect to post players. Three years later, under Coach Williams, May would lead North Carolina to the national championship. May officially ended the curse of the big man. Frankly, after May, the curse of the big man became the blessing of the big man. One of the biggest surprises in Carolina recruiting history came about a year after May led the Tar Heels to the title. Just three months later, at Peach Jam 2005, I saw Brandan Wright for the first time. He was a skinny, quiet, 6'9" power forward just oozing athletic ability and potential. However over the course of the years, conventional wisdom didn’t have him as a “Carolina guy.” Whether this observation was fair or not is another debate. Let’s just say many thought he would head to Durham to play for Coach K. The first time I saw him, his team wasn’t great and I was less than impressed. He didn’t take over, didn’t show much emotion, didn’t have a signature offensive move, and looked a little bored. So, I skipped his next game and decided to watch another great player (or so I thought) from the Class of 2006: former Tennessee forward Duke Crews. Earlier, in
Sean May ended not only UNC’s “Big Man Curse,” but also Roy Williams’s Final Four curse. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 85
REcruiting and player development
Brandan Wright, once thought to be leaning towards Duke, helped the Heels sweep the Devils in 2007. front of Roy Williams, I’d seen Crews absolutely own future Sacramento Kings center Spencer Hawes. He seemed like a perfect fit for Carolina, a hard-nosed guy whose game made as much noise as his screams. While I was watching Crews, Coach Williams was watching Brandan Wright put up 25 points and 12 rebounds. Shows you how much I know, right? I still wasn’t convinced that Wright was the right fit for UNC until the next day. I saw him play Crews’s Boo Williams team, which featured players like Vernon Macklin and Chris Wright, who both ended up at Georgetown. During the game, I sat behind an assistant from an SEC school and he spoke candidly about Wright. “He’s one of the most gifted athletes I’ve ever seen,” the assistant raved. He talked about his length, his ability to change games on the defensive end, and his intelligence. When I told him I liked Crews better for UNC, he said, “Nothing against Duke because he is a great player, but Wright will help North Carolina win a national championship. He and Tyler Hansbrough would be unstoppable.” Wright’s class did win a national title, of course, but Brandan, who only stayed in Chapel Hill for one year, wasn’t around to celebrate.
86 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
The AAU program is unique because, each year, it allows the best high school players to compete. For basically three months during the summer, recruits, teams, and their parents tour the United States and play at 8 a.m. on Saturdays in obscure high school and middle school gyms. The players’ parents (and significant others) hope their son, nephew, godson, or stepson plays well enough to earn a high-major scholarship offer. But is that all they’re hoping for? One thing that many people don’t know about AAU basketball is that you can cash in without having your son go to the NBA. Whether it be cash from Nike, free gear from Adidas, or future considerations from a college, there are many ways to manipulate a situation into something satisfying by exploiting these kids. For those recruiting veterans, forgive these next few sentences. There are three types of AAU teams, those generally sponsored by Adidas, Reebok, and Nike. Before kids even get on a team, they are recruited to be an “Adidas kid” or “Nike kid” and play at different tournaments for each sneaker company. From there, the kids are sometimes steered towards playing at a college that has a contract with that same sneaker company to keep continuity. New Orleans’s Chris Paul and Denver’s Carmelo Anthony are recent examples. Both were Nike kids in AAU, went to Nike colleges (Wake Forest and Syracuse), and now endorse the Nike/Jordan brand. It’s almost like product branding. At events, AAU coaches have the newest Jordan gear and backpacks. Some are there for the benefit of the players, but a lot aren’t. For the coaches who don’t have kids’ best interests at heart, their desire isn’t to win games or do the right thing. For many, the ideology is, “How can I use this kid to advance my position and benefit from his talents?” There are coaches in the NCAA—who will remain anonymous—who seem more like pimps and hustlers than adult figures. Even so, these coaches are charged with the task of developing and harnessing a player’s ability while making him a better and more positive contributor to society. It is this conundrum that is most perplexing: How do coaches balance their success and continued prosperity with the growth of their student-athletes? The balance in recent years seems to have shifted towards self-preservation. Let’s hope that changes. MSP Jimmy Todds has been covering AAU and high school basketball since 2000. A 2004 graduate of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Todds is an MBA candidate at Wake Forest University.
Photo: Grant Halverson/Getty Images
AAU Basketball: A Microcosm of Society?
carolina’s secret weapon Rebuilding with Strength and Conditioning Coach Jonas Sahratian by Dan Wiederer
A
s his summer began, Jonas Sahratian found himself smack dab in the middle of chaos. That office he had long occupied in the corner of the Smith Center weight room? Things had been moved temporarily into a storage closet upstairs. Those treadmills and elliptical machines? They were now in the press room. Parts of the walls and ceilings of the weight room? Those too had been moved as the North Carolina basketball program attempted to refurbish and modernize its fitness facilities. Oh yeah, and that quartet of superstars—Ty Lawson, Tyler Hansbrough, Wayne Ellington, and Danny Green—who led UNC to the national title in April? They were all gone as well, off tending to their professional careers in the NBA. The reminders were everywhere. After winning it all last spring, North Carolina once again found itself in rebuilding mode. Quite literally rebuilding mode in Sahratian’s world, as his weight room got an extreme makeover and his to-do list became more extensive and demanding. Now entering his sixth season as the Tar Heels strength and conditioning coach, Sahratian has five new freshmen—John Henson, Dexter Strickland, Leslie McDonald, David Wear, and Travis Wear—to bulk up, speed up, and tutor on how to eat right. Henson is the most talented of the bunch, but he’s also the biggest project from a physical standpoint. Despite standing 6'10", Henson’s 185-pound frame makes him among the lightest scholarship Tar Heels on the entire roster. And in order to survive his first season of college ball, he will need as much guidance from Sahratian as he can get. “I’m starting from scratch with this new group,” Sahratian said. “We’ll see what we can do.” It’s not as if Sahratian’s training doesn’t come with proven results and heartfelt endorsements. Forward/center Tyler Zeller, just a freshman himself a year ago, has put on
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 87
“If you really buy into what he does and listen to what he tells you, he can change your play on the court,” Hansbrough said. “I’m serious about that. He makes you more athletic. He can get you stronger. The results have been seen. A lot of kids coming in from high school aren’t physically ready to excel in college. Jonas’s job, in a very short time, is to prepare guys who aren’t as strong as a lot of the guys they’ll play against and get them ready for that rugged ACC play. It made a difference for me.” In five seasons at Carolina, Sahratian has now been instrumental in aiding two national title runs. He’s also helped 11 Tar Heels become NBA draft picks. Last year’s Heels had it all: speed, depth, chemistry. But the team’s behind-the-scenes dedication may have ultimately provided that last bit of championship boost. “I don’t think these guys will ever get enough credit for all the work they do in training,” Sahratian said. “This is just one piece to the puzzle. There’s obviously practice and the mental side of everything. But they saw that this was a huge thing too. It was, ‘Hey, we have goals we want to reach. We can’t take time off. It’s a yearlong thing.’ That dedication showed. Even more than that, it becomes contagious. It trickles down from class to class.”
Super-long but ultra-skinny freshman John Henson will be one of Jonas Sahratian’s newest (and most important) pupils. 15 pounds since stepping on campus. More importantly, he says he feels stronger, quicker, and more explosive thanks to Sahratian’s tutelage. Sidelined for 23 games last season after having surgery to repair his fractured left wrist, Zeller spent countless hours with Sahratian rehabilitating but also building strength through the rest of his body. “There’s no question I’ve felt the effects,” Zeller said. “You can obviously tell a difference in the way I look. But more than that, it’s been eye opening for me to see how much more energy I have, how much stamina I have. I was never really aware of all the different muscles you had to work to excel at this level. With Jonas, I’ve learned so much about taking care of my body.” And that’s after only one season. Just ask Tyler Hansbrough, UNC’s all-time leading scorer and rebounder, what four seasons with Sahratian can do. In 2005, Hansbrough came to campus with eye-opening talent and an insatiable craving to get better. His partnership with Sahratian, it turned out, became a match made in heaven.
88 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Tar Heels fans hope that Tyler Hansbrough’s dedication to strength and conditioning will be passed down to Tyler Zeller.
Photo on previous page: UNC Athletic Communications Photo on this page top-left: Doug Benc/Getty Images Photo on this page bottom-right: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
REcruiting and player development
Carolina’s Secret Weapon
Photo bottom-left: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Photo top-right: UNC Athletic Communications
When Atlanta Hawks forward Marvin Williams thinks back to his freshman season—the one that ended with the Tar Heels singing “One Shining Moment” on the championship stage at the 2005 Final Four—he can’t help but think fondly of the memories. There’s the last-minute bank shot he made to beat Duke for the ACC regular season title, the back-toback 20-point games he had to start the NCAA Tournament, and of course his game-winning tip-in with 1:26 left in the national title game that allowed Carolina to thwart a furious Illinois rally. But ask Williams, the ACC Rookie of the Year as Carolina’s sixth man that season, for the unsung hero of that team and he’ll quickly give a trademarked UNC point to Sahratian. “Jonas deserves more credit than he’ll ever get,” Williams said. “Personally, he taught me so much that got me in shape and kept me fresh for that whole run.” Hansbrough echoes that sentiment when thinking about the 2008–09 champs. A loyal disciple to Sahratian’s training philosophy, Hansbrough spent four years building himself into the face and body of college basketball. He learned quickly that his behind-the-scenes preparation depended just as much on his attention to nutrition and his disciplined stretching and recovery routines as it did on the strength training itself. “You have to teach these guys how to eat to grow and give themselves energy,” Sahratian said. “And you have to show them new ways for their bodies to heal and recover.”
Stretching before and after each workout is an integral part of UNC’s training regimen.
When it comes to training, Sahratian wants players to understand from day one that his title is strength and conditioning coach, not weightlifting coach. “You don’t want to bulk somebody up where you put 30 pounds on the guy but you take away his explosiveness and his first-step quickness,” he said. “A lot of kids think when they first get here that it’s about coming in and seeing how much they can bench. It’s far from that.” That’s why incoming freshmen, in the summer before arriving in Chapel Hill, are given a “general strength” regimen to prepare their bodies, no weights required. Push-ups, chin-ups, and bar dips. Bridges, back extensions, and walking lunges. Still, Sahratian’s biggest emphasis with the Tar Heels remains on Olympic lifting, with a heavy dose of squats, power cleans, snatches, and Romanian dead-lifts incorporated to improve explosion. “You’re training a lot of muscle groups Deon Thompson has totally reshaped his body since enrolling at Carolina and working with Sahratian. at one time,” Sahratian said. “We’re training
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 89
REcruiting and player development explosiveness, speed, power, rate of force development, coordination, and timing. Basically you’re programming all these muscle groups to function together at one time so you can synchronize the whole kinetic chain from the ankle all the way up through the legs, the hips, the back, and into the upper body to finish the lift.” Sahratian may be working with some of the most advanced young athletes in the country, but when he inherits them as clueless college freshmen, they are often nutrition dimwits. “Completely brain dead,” Sahratian said. “Trying to get them to realize what a carbohydrate is, and what a protein is, and what fat is can be like teaching nuclear physics.” With the Tar Heels players, Sahratian finds himself on a daily crusade to provide new insight on how they should be eating. He wants his players to eat organic as much as possible. He wants them to eliminate energy-depleting processed foods and fried foods, and quash the bad habits of their fastfood generation. That means knowing how to season steaks, chicken breasts, and eggs. (Mrs. Dash, extra virgin olive oil, and lemon
After working with Sahratian in 2005, Sean May was able to carry his teammates all the way to a national championship. 90 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
juice all get the nod. Ketchup and other condiments loaded with vegetable oils or high-fructose corn syrup do not.) Williams, now heading into his fifth NBA season, admits that when he came first to Chapel Hill in the summer of 2004, he was magnetized to the vending machines inside his dorm. Asked if he remembers his guilty pleasures, Williams laughs. “Do I remember? I can still tell you the buttons I pushed. F3 was the Pop-Tarts. C2 was the M&Ms. It was pretty bad. It’s not like I’d get really tired. I just wouldn’t recover as fast as I wanted to.” Nowadays, Williams subscribes to a diet high in protein with plenty of green vegetables. With the help of a personal chef that Sahratian helped him hire, Williams inhales large salads on game days, loaded with mixed greens, tomatoes, and a protein source, be it chicken, steak, or shrimp. In the offseason, Williams continues to return to Chapel Hill to train with Sahratian. So too does Sean May, the Most Outstanding Player of the 2005 Final Four, who can also attest to Sahratian’s dietary wisdom. As a junior at UNC, May’s first season with Sahratian, the new coach immediately helped him improve his
Bottom-left photo: Travis Lindquist/Getty Images Top-right-photo: Joe Murphy/Getty Images
Hansbrough’s “psycho” workouts with Sahratian made him stronger and more explosive.
Photo: Pool/Getty Images
Carolina’s Secret Weapon conditioning and body composition. The transformation began not in the gym or the weight room, but at the kitchen table where Sahratian asked May to subscribe to a “caveman diet.” “If it wasn’t on the earth 10,000 years ago, don’t eat it,” Sahratian warned. “If it can’t walk, swim, or fly, and it’s not green, then don’t eat it.” For May, that meant incorporating more fish into his diet, more green vegetables, and meats high in lean protein: lamb chops, chicken, steak. It also meant lots and lots of water and an elimination of Gatorade— “Glorified sugar water,” according to Sahratian—from the repertoire. To keep May honest and accountable, Sahratian asked the attentive big Even as an NBA veteran, Marvin Williams is still using the knowledge he learned from Sahratian while at Carolina. man to carry a binder along with him and record every last thing he ate. That log was then scrutinized and graded as if it were a PhD dissertation. On gameday, Hansbrough would arrive at the Smith Last summer, Sahratian took a similar approach with Center more than an hour before his teammates. He’d get his Deon Thompson, asking the Tar Heels forward to take cell hamstrings, quadriceps, groin, and glutes stretched out. He’d phone pictures of everything he ate. do hip swings, high-knee skips, and carioca, and occasionally Once a sucker for Wendy’s—“It was the easiest to get to,” take to the court for a series of dunks with a nine-pound Thompson said—he now takes pride in his growing nutrition medicine ball, designed to excite his nervous system. knowledge. That’s why an e-mail he sent to Sahratian last After the game it was much of the same, with more summer came through with subject line, “I can cook, man!” stretching and some work with a foam roller. And then after and featured an attached photo of a grilled chicken salad with downing a protein shake, Hansbrough would often head to tomatoes and feta cheese beside a couple of shrimp skewers. take a contrast bath where, like many Carolina players, he “Taking those pictures taught me about accountability,” would alternate between the cold tub and the hot tub in an Thompson said. “I couldn’t slip up. That was extra pressure effort to relieve and revitalize his muscles. on me to eat the right foods and show Jonas I was doing the “It triggers a pumping action that flushes the tissues,” right things.” Sahratian said. “You’re getting metabolic waste products With his habits changed, the results have been obviout, helping lymphatic flow, all the things you want to speed ous. Thompson, who before arriving at UNC had once up recovery.” tipped the scales at 305 pounds, is now listed at 245. As a And so now, heading into the 2009–10 season, Sahratian junior last season, he averaged career highs in points (10.6) must again use his expertise to speed the Tar Heels’ recovery and rebounds (5.7). from the losses of so many key contributors from a year ago. “The food you eat is the fuel for your body,” he said. The rebuilding has started. A new championship quest Still, in Sahratian’s eyes, all the lifting and conditioning is underway. And while it will be Hall of Fame coach Roy in the world will produce only minimal benefits if players Williams and his stable of elite talent that will take center don’t understand how to take care of their bodies before and stage on game nights, the value of Sahratian’s behind-theafter a workout. scenes training should not be overlooked. MSP No player in the history of Carolina basketball took more pounding than Hansbrough. And yet, over four years, he was Dan Wiederer, has been living in North Carolina and covering the ACC since one of the most the resilient big men around. Hansbrough the 2004–2005 season. His college basketball coverage has recieved numerattributed his durability to his obsessive attention to stretching ous awards, most notably from the Associated Press Sports Editors. His writing has also been recognized in The Best American Sports Writing series. and recovery, habits Sahratian helped sharpen.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 91
Player Development in the Roy Williams Era by Adrian Atkinson
T
he conventional wisdom suggests that Roy Williams and his staff (including, of course, the strength and conditioning work spearheaded by Jonas Sahratian) do a superlative job of developing players at North Carolina. Is this claim supported by the empirical evidence? To answer this question, let’s take a look at the career improvements by the Carolina players coached by Williams. In general, career improvement is defined as the percentage change in freshman-to-senior PER (a statistic which measures per-minute efficiency). In the cases of Raymond Felton, Sean May, Rashad McCants, Ty Lawson, and Wayne Ellington, it is measured by the freshman-to-junior PER percentage change (and the freshman-to-sophomore change in the case of Alex Stepheson). For Jawad Williams, Jackie Manuel, and Melvin Scott (who were coached by Matt Doherty as freshmen and sophomores, with Roy Williams taking over to provide post-sophomore-year development), career improvement is measured by sophomore-to-senior PER percentage change to most accurately reflect those players’ improvements during their years under Williams. Excluding one-and-dones (Marvin Williams and Brandan Wright) and non-rotation players, of the 16 Tar Heel recruits who have played the majority of their careers under the tutelage of Williams and his staff, 12 have improved more than the average ACC player at his position. One has improved an average amount, and only three of the 16 have improved at a rate worse than the ACC average. Of the three Tar Heels who did not improve as much as their ACC positional counterparts, one (Bobby Frasor) was plagued by injuries, one (Alex Stepheson) transferred prior to becoming a finished product, and one was Tyler Hansbrough (whose below-average rate of improvement was wholly a function of his remarkable baseline level of production due to freshman-year superstardom). In summary, the average Roy Williams-coached UNC player has improved 35% (on a per-minute basis) over the
course of his career. The average ACC comparable (by position and length of career) improved just 27%. More impressive, perhaps, is the fact that three-quarters of Williams’s Tar Heel pupils have made greater-than-average strides as collegians. That is at least partially attributable to the behindthe-scenes work Sahratian does in the weight room. The bottom line is a happy one for Carolina fans: When you recruit significantly better-than-average players and develop them at a significantly better-than-average rate, you’re going to win a significantly better-than-average percentage of your games. Just call it the Roy Williams way. Player (Class)
MPG
PER
Career PER Improvement
J. Williams (SO)
33.4
14.7
J. Williams (SR)
24.0
19.9
J. Williams: 35% Avg. ACC SO-SR PF: 14%
Manuel (SO)
25.1
10.8
Manuel (SR)
21.8
11.9
Scott (SO)
19.7
9.1
Scott (SR)
16.3
10.9
Felton (FR)
35.4
14.5
Felton (JR)
31.7
21.0
May (FR)
28.0
15.8
May (JR)
26.8
28.5
McCants (FR)
29.9
16.6
McCants (JR)
25.9
22.6
Noel (FR)
21.9
11.5
Noel (SR)
33.7
14.9
Sanders (FR)
15.7
4.2
Sanders (SR)
12.2
7.2
Terry (FR)
4.2
12.2
Terry (SR)
21.5
18.7
Thomas (FR)
6.3
5.5
Thomas (SR)
15.9
10.6
Hansbrough (FR)
30.4
22.2
Hansbrough (SR)
30.3
27.7
Green (FR)
15.3
18.0
Green (SR)
27.4
23.2
Frasor (FR)
27.5
10.2
Frasor (SR)
17.4
8.1
Lawson (FR)
25.7
21.6
Lawson (JR)
29.9
30.9
Ellington (FR)
23.9
16.6
Ellington (JR)
30.4
20.8
Stepheson (FR)
6.4
13.6
Stepheson (SO)
14.5
11.6
Average (First year)
21.8
13.5
Average (Final year)
23.7
18.2
Manuel: 10% Avg. ACC SO-SR SF: 10% Scott: 20% Avg. ACC SO-SR SG: 11% Felton: 45% Avg. ACC FR-JR PG: 41% May: 80% Avg. ACC FR-JR C: 30% McCants: 36% Avg. ACC FR-JR SG: 24% Noel: 30% Avg. ACC FR-SR PF: 29% Sanders: 71% Avg. ACC FR-SR C: 39% Terry: 53% Avg. ACC FR-SR SF: 22% Thomas: 93% Avg. ACC FR-SR PG: 49% Hansbrough: 25% Avg. ACC FR-SR C: 39% Green: 24% Avg. ACC FR-SR SF: 22% Frasor: -21% Avg. ACC FR-SR SG: 27% Lawson: 43% Avg. ACC FR-JR PG: 41% Ellington: 25% Avg. ACC FR-JR SG: 24% Stepheson: -15% Avg. ACC FR-SO C: 5% Avg. Roy Williams: 35% Avg. ACC Comp.: 27%
Paving the Road to a Title The Best Recruiting Classes in Carolina History by Adrian Atkinson
W
hen the Heels cut down the nets in Detroit last April, it was on the strength of outstanding recruiting classes in consecutive seasons: Hansbrough-Green-Ginyard-Frasor-Copeland in 2005, followed by Lawson-Ellington-Wright-ThompsonStepheson-Graves in 2006. Not surprisingly, most NCAA championships arrive on the heels of at least one elite group of recruits (think Florida’s Class of 2004 haul including Horford-Noah-Brewer-Green). So historically which groups have been UNC’s finest? While that is certainly a question that can be answered in many ways, we will use a metric called Wins Over Replacement Player (WORP) to measure Carolina’s best recruiting classes. WORP is ideal for this exercise because it combines per-minute efficiency with actual playing time to compute a player’s true impact. By using Career WORP (instead of WORP/1000 minutes or some other normalized metric), this analysis implicitly favors players (and classes) that maximize their college eligibility (i.e., four-year players). WORP values are only available for years after 1980, for classes before then we substitute career points. We also took intangibles such as team success, peak performance, etc. into account, so the rankings are not solely based on WORP. In essence, we are trying to answer the following question: As collegians, which recruiting class has had the greatest cumulative impact on the North Carolina basketball program? For the sake of consistency (and comparing apples to apples), we’ll limit the analysis to cover only the time period in which freshmen were eligible—high school classes from 1972 to the present. But let’s first give some love to the best Carolina classes of the three-year (freshmen ineligible) ACC era (high school classes of 1952–1972). All are ranked by career points since WORP data wasn’t available until 1980.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 93
REcruiting and player development
1. High school class of 1965: Joe Brown, Bill Bunting, Rusty Clark, Dick Grubar, Gerald Tuttle—3,903 career points Carolina’s class of ’69 won three consecutive ACC regular season and tournament championships. For good measure, they also advanced to the Final Four in each of their three varsity seasons. Bunting, Clark, and Grubar were all three-year starters.
2. High school class of 1968: Bill Chamberlain, Bill Chambers, Craig Corson, Kim Huband, Steve Previs, Dennis Wuycik—3,526 career points
3. High school class of 1954: Pete Brennan, Bob Cunningham, Tommy Kearns, Joe Quigg, Ken Rosemond, Roy Searcy—3,333 career points This class accounted for four of Frank McGuire’s five starters on the 1957 national champions (joining Lennie Rosenbluth from the high school class of ’53). After Rosenbluth graduated following the ’57 title, Brennan became the ACC’s Player of the Year in 1958.
4. High school class of 1956: John Crotty, Grey Poole, Dick Kepley, Harvey Salz, Lee Shaffer, Ray Stanley—2,911 career points Along with York Larese from the Class of ’57, Shaffer, Salz, Kepley, and Stanley formed the nucleus of Carolina’s 1960 squad that tied Wake Forest for the ACC regular season title with a 12–2 mark (18–6 overall). Shaffer was first-team All-ACC that season, and Salz was a three-year starter who averaged 11.6 PPG and 3.7 RPG over his UNC career.
5. High school class of 1963: Tom Gauntlett, Bob Lewis, Mark Mirken, Ian Morrison—2,680 career points Lewis, one-half of the “L&M Boys,” was the star of this class, averaging 22.1 points in his 83 career games as a Tar Heel. Gauntlett also started as a junior in 1966 before grudgingly giving way to sophomore Dick Grubar in 1967.
Rasheed talked a big game, but could back it up with his play on the court Moving on to the freshmen-eligible era, let’s count down from 10 to 1:
10. High school class of 1974: Phil Ford, Tom Zaliagiris—2,760 career points Phil Ford, of course, remains one of Carolina’s truly legendary figures and greatest players. Any recruiting class including a star of that magnitude has to be considered among the elite. Adding in Zaliagiris—a quintessential Dean Smith recruit who improved every year and averaged 9.3 PPG as a starting senior—makes this a small yet wildly successful class.
9. High school class of 1980: Matt Doherty, Cecil Exum, Timo Makkonen, Sam Perkins, Dean Shaffer—Career WORP: 23.41 Even after Tyler Hansbrough ransacked the record books, Sam Perkins remains second on Carolina’s career rebounding list and its third leading scorer. One of the most underrated players in Carolina history, Perkins made an impact from his very first game as a Tar Heel (20 points and 10 boards vs. Alaska-Anchorage in the Great Alaska Shootout) through his last game (26 points and 9 boards in the heart-wrenching loss to Indiana in the ’84 NCAA Tournament). Doherty was also a four-year contributor who scored over 1,100 points while adding a symmetrical 446 rebounds and 446 assists in his career. Both players were starters and key cogs in the ’82 championship run. None of the other three players in this class did much to distinguish themselves at Carolina, although Makkonen was able to earn a sweet nickname (“The Human Victory Cigar”).
8. High school class of 1986: Pete Chilcutt, Jeff Denny, Rodney Hyatt, J.R. Reid, Scott Williams—Career WORP: 23.91 Dean Smith was able to ink three highly-regarded big men
94 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Photo on previous page: Doug Pensinger/Getty Images Photo on this page: Doug Pensinger/Getty Images
As seniors, Chamberlain, Previs, and Wuycik were starters on the 1972 Final Four team, and the sweet-stroking Huband (who made 53 of 57 free throws in ’72) was a key piece off the bench. Wuycik, a name that’s too often overlooked in discussions of UNC’s best players, accumulated the following lofty career numbers: 16.9 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 59.0 FG%, and 83.4 FT%.
Paving the Road to a Title Best ACC Recruiting Classes (by Highest Career WORP): 1979–2008 Team/Class
Recruits
Duke 2002
Dockery, Melchionni, Randolph, Redick, Thompson, S. Williams
35.02
Duke 1982
Alarie, Bilas, Dawkins, D. Henderson, Jackman, W. Williams
34.84
Duke 1999
Boozer, Buckner, Dunleavy, Horvath, Sanders, J. Williams
31.75
Blucas, Childress, Doggett, S. King, Owens, Rogers
31.15
Duke 1997
Avery, Battier, Brand, Burgess
30.42
UNC 1990
Phelps, Montross, Reese, Rozier, P. Sullivan
28.33
*UNC 2005
Copeland, Frasor, Ginyard, Green, Hansbrough
26.31
UNC 2002
Felton, Grant, May, McCants, Noel, Sanders
26.14
UNC 1995
Carter, Jamison, Okulaja
25.80
Cross, Newburg, Robinson, Sampson
25.42
Corchiani, Monroe
25.18
Wake Forest 1990
Virginia 1979 N.C. State 1987 Georgia Tech 1982
Career WORP
Harvey, Mansell, Pearson, Price, Salley
25.04
Duke 1989
T. Hill, Hurley, McCaffrey
24.84
Duke 1988
Davis, Laettner, Palmer
24.76
*UNC 2006
Ellington, Graves, Lawson, Stepheson, Thompson, Wright
24.72
Duncan, Peral
24.68
Clemson 1995
T. Christie, H. Jamison, L. Jones, Jurkunas, McIntyre, Wideman
24.66
N.C. State 1979
Bailey, Lowe, Whittenburg
24.60
Duke 1985
Ferry, Smith, Snyder
24.02
UNC 1986
Chilcutt, Denny, Hyatt, Reid, Sc. Williams
23.91
Anderson, Barnes, Hill, Mackey, Newbill
23.77
UNC 1980
Doherty, Exum, Makkonen, Perkins, Shaffer
23.41
UNC 1982
Daugherty, Hale, Hunter
21.79
Duke 1990
Blakeney, Clark, G. Hill, Lang
21.66
Caner-Medley, Garrison, Gilchrist, McCray
21.65
Ch. Alexander, Co. Alexander, Barnes, Burrough, Williford
20.61
D. Barry, Best, Forrest, Harlicka
20.21
Lynch, Rodl, Salvadori, Wenstrom
20.05
Wake Forest 1998
Dawson, Hicks, Murray, Scott, Songaila
19.86
Maryland 1992
Hipp, Lucas, Petrovic, Rhodes, Simpkins
19.85
Wake Forest 1993
Georgia Tech 1989
Maryland 2002 Virginia 1991 Georgia Tech 1991 UNC 1989
* Classes include active players.
Dean Smith parlayed the recruiting momentum generated by winning the 1993 national championship into this monster class—all of whom had long NBA careers after leaving Carolina. Possibly the most physically-gifted group of recruits to ever enter UNC, this triumvirate would rank even higher on the list had they used more than 7 of their 12 combined years of eligibility.
6. High school class of 1995: Vince Carter, Antawn Jamison, Ademola Okulaja—Career WORP: 25.80 Just two years after signing the StackhouseWallace-McInnis trio, Dean Smith followed it up with another class of athletic studs. “The Three Musketeers” became quick friends off the court, and quick contributors on it. Joined by Shammond Williams (Class of ’94) and Ed Cota (Class of ’96), the class of ’95 formed the backbone of a team that made consecutive Final Four appearances in 1997 and 1998. All members of Carolina’s 1,200-point club, Jamison, Carter, and Okulaja combined for 4,489 points and 2,380 rebounds in their careers (13.0 PPG, 6.9 RPG). The jerseys of Jamison (retired) and Carter (honored) will forever hang in the Smith Center rafters.
Photo: Andy Lyons/Getty Images
from the high school class of 1986. Reid and Williams were both top-five recruits and immediately cracked Carolina’s rotation. Due to UNC’s glut of bigs in ’87 (seniors Joe Wolf and Dave Popson in addition to Reid and Williams), Chilcutt redshirted, gained weight, and became a solid four-year contributor at Carolina (leading the Heels to the ’91 Final Four along with true seniors Rick Fox and King Rice). The post trio of Reid, Williams, and Chilcutt combined for 4,210 points and 2,358 rebounds in 374 career games in Chapel Hill—or 11.3 points and 6.3 boards per contest. It’s safe to say that the “Curse of the Big Man” did not apply to Dean Smith in the mid-1980s.
7. High school class of 1993: Jeff McInnis, Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace— Career WORP: 19.47 “As long as Me, Touche, and Jerry are here, we ain’t ever losing here.” So said Rasheed Wallace (allegedly) about Cameron Indoor Stadium—and, not only did that class never lose at CIS, they never lost to Duke period (’Sheed and Stack were 4–0, McInnis 6–0).
Danny Green’s versatility made him a crucial part of the recruiting class of 2005. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 95
REcruiting and player development Instant Impact: Highest Freshman-Year WORP for an ACC Class Team/Class
Recruits
FR-Year WORP
Duke (1997)
Avery, Battier, Brand, Burgess
8.48
UNC (2006)
Ellington, Graves, Lawson, Stepheson, Thompson, Wright
7.97
Georgia Tech (1989)
Anderson, Barnes, Hill, Mackey, Newbill
6.67
Wake Forest (1990)
Blucas, Childress, Doggett, S. King, Owens, Rogers
5.88
Duke (1999) Clemson (1995)
Boozer, Buckner, Dunleavy, Horvath, Sanders, J. Williams
5.83
T. Christie, H. Jamison, L. Jones, Jurkunas, McIntyre, Wideman
5.71
UNC (1993)
McInnis, Stackhouse, Wallace
5.60
Maryland (1993)
Booth, Bosnic, Kovarik, J. Smith
5.31
Virginia (1979) Wake Forest (2003)
Cross, Newburg, Robinson, Sampson
5.10
Hendley, Ingram, Paul, Visser
4.93
UNC (1980)
Doherty, Exum, Makkonen, Perkins, Shaffer
UNC (1995)
Carter, Jamison, Okulaja
Georgia Tech (2006)
Crittenton, Faye, Peacock, Sheehan, Young
Georgia Tech (1997)
Glover, Jones, Spivey, Vines
Georgia Tech (1982)
Harvey, Mansell, Pearson, Price, Salley
5. High school class of 1973: Bruce Buckley, Geoff Crompton, Walter Davis, John Kuester, Tom LaGarde—3,928 career points It didn’t take Dean Smith very long to get the hang of freshman eligibility. In the first year that frosh were allowed to play varsity hoops, he added instant-impact recruit Mitch Kupchak (7.7 PPG, 5.0 RPG as a freshman in 1973). The very next year, Smith signed Walter Davis who averaged 14.3 points and 4.7 rebounds per game in his first collegiate campaign. While it took Kuester and LaGarde a little longer than “Sweet D” to develop into impact collegians, both had joined him in the starting lineup by 1976. And by 1977, Davis, LaGarde, and Kuester had joined Phil Ford as the nucleus of a Final Four team (although LaGarde missed the postseason after blowing out a knee in February). Although Davis was the star of this class, LaGarde (a ’76 Olympian) averaged 15.1 PPG and 7.4 RPG as a senior in ’77. In that same season, Kuester was named ACC Tournament MVP and East Regional MOP.
4.80
Carolina fans for his steady play as a freshman point guard on the overachieving 2006 team. And, yeah, Hansbrough had a pretty good run in Chapel Hill too.
3. High school class of 2002: Raymond Felton, Damion Grant, Sean May, Rashad McCants, David Noel, Byron Sanders—Career WORP: 26.14
The only class in the program’s history to have three jerseys in the rafters (Felton, 4.44 McCants, and May), this group led the 4.43 Heels to Roy Williams’s first national championship in 2005. Matt Doherty’s crown recruiting jewel, the Class of 2002 featured three topten talents. As those stars blossomed under Roy Williams’s tutelage, the 8–20 debacle was quickly erased from the minds of Carolina fans as the winning tradition was restored. While Felton, McCants, and May were the more heralded and decorated members of this class, David Noel also made key contributions throughout his four-year career. His presence was especially important in 2006 after his more publicized classmates headed off to collect their NBA riches. The consummate Carolina leader, Noel and his recruiting class helped Carolina to return to glory. 4.77
4.70
2. High school class of 1990: Eric Montross, Derrick Phelps, Brian Reese, Clifford Rozier, Pat Sullivan—Career WORP: 28.33
While Tyler Hansbrough is the undisputed star of this class, Carolina wouldn’t have reached back-to-back Final Fours or won the 2009 national championship without the contributions of Green, Ginyard, and Frasor. Green, in particular, enjoyed four years of stat-stuffing excellence at UNC—becoming the only player in ACC history with 1,000 points, 500 rebounds, 250 assists, 150 made three-pointers, 150 blocks, and 150 steals. As seen in the table on page 97, this group has a chance to move into the top spot in UNC Career WORP if Ginyard can have an especially productive senior season. Frasor holds a special place in the hearts of
96 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Travis Wear (24) hopes to be a big part of Carolina’s next superclass.
Photo: Doug Benc/Getty Images Sport
4. High school class of 2005: Mike Copeland, Bobby Frasor, Marcus Ginyard, Danny Green, Tyler Hansbrough—Career WORP of 26.31 (and counting)
Paving the Road to a Title Carolina’s reigning leaders in Career WORP, the high school class of 1990 was Dean Smith’s retort to his critics. After enduring eight seasons without a Final Four trip (although the Heels made the Sweet 16 each of those years) from 1983 to 1990, Smith was hearing the murmurs that “the game had passed him by.” If that ridiculous assertion was true, then, starting with the 1990 class, Smith caught up to the game, blew by it on the straightaway, and lapped it several times for good measure—making four Final Fours and winning a national championship in his final seven seasons in Chapel Hill. This class of recruits contributed to two of those Final Four trips and the 1993 championship. Montross, Phelps, and Reese were all three-year starters, and Sullivan was a key part of the rotation throughout his career.
1. High school class of 2006: Wayne Ellington, Will Graves, Ty Lawson, Alex Stepheson, Deon Thompson, and Brandan Wright—Career WORP: 24.72 (and counting) Like the high school class of 2005 (with Ginyard), this group is still in the process of adding to its legacy. With a season
Before heading to the NBA, Eric Montross (and his high school class of 1990) helped the Heels to two Final Fours and a national championship.
UNC’s Recruiting Classes from 1979–2008: Highest to Lowest Career WORP
Photo: Bill Baptist/NBAE/Getty Images
Class
Recruits
Career WORP FR-Year WORP
1990
Montross, Phelps, Reese, Rozier, P. Sullivan
28.33
3.75
*2005
Copeland, Frasor, Ginyard, Green, Hansbrough
26.31
4.23
2002
Felton, Grant, May, McCants, Noel, Sanders
26.14
3.89
1995
Carter, Jamison, Okulaja
25.80
4.77
*2006
Ellington, Graves, Lawson, Stepheson, Thompson, Wright
24.72
7.97
1986
Chilcutt, Denny, Hyatt, Reid, Sc. Williams
23.91
4.16
1980
Doherty, Exum, Makkonen, Perkins, Shaffer
23.41
4.80
1982
Daugherty, Hale, Hunter
21.79
2.38
1989
Lynch, Rodl, Salvadori, Wenstrom
20.05
1.39
1993
McInnis, Stackhouse, Wallace
19.47
5.60
1985
Bucknall, Hensley, Lebo, Madden
19.28
3.14
1983
Popson, K. Smith, Joe Wolf
18.85
1.47
1981
Brownlee, Jordan, Martin, Peterson, Robinson
17.00
2.43
1987
Fox, Rice
15.92
0.76
1997
Bersticker, Haywood, Melendez, Owens
11.46
1.52
1979
Braddock, Worthy
10.49
0.98
1996
Cota, Evtimov, Brooker, Newby
10.35
2.79
1998
Capel, Curry, Lang
8.75
1.05
1992
Calabria, L. Davis, Geth, Zwikker
8.44
0.22
1988
H. Davis
8.24
0.24
2001
Manuel, Scott, J. Williams
7.43
-0.24
1994
R. Sullivan, Sh. Williams
6.98
0.16
1999
Forte, Holmes, Johnson, Peppers
6.12
1.69
1991
D. Williams
6.06
0.14
2003
Bohlander, Terry
3.67
0.09
2004
M. Williams, Thomas
2.98
2.06
1984
M. Brust, R. Smith
2.88
-0.13
*2008
E. Davis, Drew II, Watts, Zeller
2.02
2.02
2007
No Recruits
0.00
0.00
2000
Boone, Fingleton, Morrison
-0.33
0.02
* Classes include active players.
left from Thompson, and two left from Graves, it is likely that the Class of 2006 will be sitting on top of the UNC Career WORP list once they’ve hung up their Carolina-blue sneakers. Despite getting only a season from 2007 ACC Rookie of the Year Brandan Wright and losing Alex Stepheson to USC after two seasons, this class has still accumulated incredible numbers— both in terms of individual statistics and team accomplishments. If there were any questions about where the Class of ’06 might rank on this list, Lawson and Ellington answered them during the 2009 NCAA Tournament. In cementing their status as one of the elite backcourts in Tar Heel history, the Lawson-Ellington duo dominated all challengers on the path to the title. If Thompson and/or Graves can add a breakout season to this group’s already robust résumé, the bar will be raised even higher for all subsequent Carolina recruiting classes. But, before he hangs up the whistle, I have a feeling that Ol’ Roy might just add a couple more groups worthy of challenging for the top spot on this list. MSP
Adrian Atkinson is the editor of Tar Heel Tip-Off. A 1999 University of Richmond graduate and lifelong Tar Heel fan, he is an environmental economist who lives in Raleigh with his wife Katya.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 97
UNC Heroes
The Class of ’69 Putting Dean Smith on the Map (and in the Final Four) by Jim Sumner
T
he 1965–66 UNC basketball team boasted two of the nation’s top players. Bob Lewis was a 6'3" junior, a spectacular leaper and shooter, whose 27.4 points per game led the ACC. Sharing the ball with Lewis was Larry Miller, a 6'3" sophomore who averaged 20.9 points per game. Surely, the presence of these two stars (a duo coined the “L&M Boys”) led to a banner season for the Tar Heels. Well, no, actually. Carolina went 8–6 in the ACC, 16–11 overall—not bad, but nothing to evoke the memories of Frank McGuire’s great teams of a decade earlier. Three of those losses were to Vic Bubas’s Duke Blue Devils, a pair of double-digit losses in the regular season and a 21–20 loss in the ACC Tournament in which Dean Smith ordered a game-long Four Corners in an acknowledgment that his team couldn’t compete otherwise. Duke was really good in 1965–66—Final Four good. Center Mike Lewis was a sophomore starter on that team. He recalled, “We just outmanned that team. They had two great players, but they didn’t have much else.” Fast forward one year. Mike Lewis said Carolina, “Got real good, real fast. They added bodies, big bodies. Guys who could play.” Indeed they did. A prodigiously talented, five-player class became eligible. Three of them started from day one and remained starters during a three-year run that transformed Carolina basketball. Let’s look at the cast of characters. Dean Smith’s first five teams were woefully undersized, sending mid-sized players like Billy Cunningham, Ray Respess, Lewis, and Miller against bigger opponents. Smith needed size and he corralled two post players who would change the equation.
of Yesteryear
Rusty Clark, Dean Smith’s first true center, was a double-double machine for the Tar Heels. Both were in-state products, a dramatic change from the McGuire years, when Tar Heel basketball spoke with a New York accent. Franklin “Rusty” Clark was a 6'10" center from Fayetteville, an exceptional student, and the most highlytouted big man on the East Coast not named Lew Alcindor. Clark could have gone anywhere but he cast his lot with Smith, coming on board as a Morehead Scholar. In A Coach’s Life, Smith called Clark, “A breakthrough for us, our first big man and true center.” Bill Bunting was a tougher sell. Bunting’s older brother Harry was a student at Carolina but their father was a Duke alum. A 6'8" forward from New Bern, Bunting grew up a fan of the ACC. “I got Dixie Classic tickets every Christmas,” he recalled. “I watched the ACC on TV, went to the camps. I dreamed of playing in the ACC.” Bunting ruled out non-ACC schools, coming down to Carolina and Duke. “I anguished over it. I had been a Duke fan growing up and visited the school several times. But I was kind of intimidated by Duke. It was not a relaxed atmosphere.” Having Clark on board didn’t hurt either. Bunting played his entire college career at less than 200 pounds and he knew that Clark’s presence ensured that he could play forward. Bunting, Clark, and Raleigh’s Pete Maravich played on the East team in the state’s East-West All-Star Game—a trio for the ages. The West team included Joe Brown, a 6'5" forward from the small, foothills community of Valdese. Brown grew up a Wake Forest fan until he started attending summer camps in
100 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Chapel Hill. Brown said Smith was the deal-clincher, “He was so genuine, so real. No one could have predicted what he was going to become. But I liked him from the start and knew that I wanted to play for him.” The rest of the class came from more exotic realms. Dick Grubar was a 6'3" high school post player from Schenectady—a natural guard forced to play inside for a prep team with no height. Schenectady had sent Pat Riley (from a different high school) to Kentucky, and Grubar was all set to follow. But the in-home visit from Kentucky coach Adolph Rupp didn’t go well. “He set around for two hours talking about himself,” Grubar recalled. “It turned us off.” Grubar turned down Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, and others to come south. There still was room for another guard. Gerald Tuttle was a 6'0" playmaker from London, KY. He wanted to play for Kentucky but his interest wasn’t reciprocated. His older brother Cecil had played AAU ball with Larry Brown, who joined the Carolina staff in the spring of 1965. Upon Cecil’s recommendation to Brown, Carolina took a look at Gerald and liked what they saw. Asked about his classmates, Tuttle laughed, “I had no clue about any of them. But I had waited for Rupp and the offer never came, so UNC looked pretty good.” Freshmen couldn’t play varsity in those days, but it didn’t take long for the Class of ’69 to make their presence known. Bunting said the group tended to stay together in pickup games. “I remember a game when Rusty and I were just beating the varsity to death inside. Bob Lewis stopped the game and informed everybody that from now on, he was splitting us up. That made me feel pretty good.” It got better. Carmichael Auditorium was opening for the 1965–66 season and someone decided it would be a good idea to match the freshmen against the varsity. The freshmen won. Smith was more than a little concerned. He quickly arranged a rematch, which the varsity won. Bunting recalls some alumni on the varsity team and some curious substitution patterns for his team, which was coached by Brown. “The fix was in,” he laughed. “But we knew we had something special.” After the obligatory season on the freshman team, the quintet joined the varsity. Two starters had graduated from the 1965–66 team. Clark and Bunting gave Smith the size he had long prized, and they easily slipped into the starting lineup alongside Lewis and Miller. The fifth starting spot was a bit trickier. Tom Gauntlett was the incumbent, a hard-working 6'4" senior. But Grubar was simply a better player and Gauntlett went to the bench. He wasn’t especially happy, but accepted it and didn’t disrupt the chemistry. In the 1960s it was said that the only good thing about sophomores was that they eventually became juniors. Having three sophomore starters was considered risky business in that
Photo on previous page: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Photo on this page: Collegiate Images/Getty Images
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
The Class of ’69
Photo bottom-left: Collegiate Images/Getty Images Photo top-right: Collegiate Images/Getty Images
era. Duke returned the bulk of its 1966 Final Four team, including Lewis and star guard Bob Verga, and seemed the logical choice to finish first in the ACC for the fifth consecutive season. Duke began the season ranked fourth, five spots ahead of UNC. The ACC race was expected to shake out about the same way. But Duke struggled out of the gate, losing three of its first four contests. Carolina more than filled the void. The big win came December 13 in Lexington, KY. Entering that contest, UNC was 3–0 and had moved up a spot to eighth in the AP poll. But Kentucky was ranked fourth. The Wildcats had famously lost to Texas Western in the 1966 NCAA title game and returned stars Riley and Louie Dampier in 1966–67. Carolina dominated Kentucky from the beginning. They led 35–25 at the half and closed with a 64–55 win. Miller led everybody with 24 points. “This win gave us confidence,” Grubar said. “Talent is good, but talent without confidence won’t get you very far. Talent and confidence will take you places.” Brown added, “We used the Four Corners to protect the lead and they couldn’t defend it. Coach Smith’s philosophy was work harder, be prepared, trust the coaches and the system, and things will turn out alright. After Kentucky, we believed.” The Tar Heels built on the big win. They were 9–0 before losing to Princeton and followed that loss with seven more victories. One of those wins was January 7 at Duke. Miller hit a
Always a steady player at UNC, Bill Bunting developed into a star his senior year.
Dick Grubar was a lockdown perimeter defender who proved irreplaceable after his late-season knee injury in 1969. big shot late and Carolina escaped with a 59–56 win. Mike Lewis got his first look at the Carolina big men. He recalled Clark “as being something of a klutz. But he was a big, hard-working klutz. There weren’t too many sevenfooters in those days. I had a helluva time with him.” Bunting? “He was so skinny, he looked like he didn’t belong anywhere near a basketball court. But after the game, you’d look at the box score and he’d have 16 points and eight rebounds and his team always won. So, you figured maybe he did belong on the court.” Only Clemson and South Carolina were able to figure out Carolina in the ACC. The Tar Heels finished the regular season with a 92–79 thumping of Duke, starting a Blue Devils losing streak at Carmichael that would last until 1985. ACC regular season champions, 12–2 in the league, ranked third in the nation. And they had to do it all over again in the ACC Tournament. The ACC’s only NCAA representative was determined in a three-day, winner-take-all crapshoot. Still, Grubar maintained, “We were 19, 20, 21 years old. What did we know of pressure? We just knew we were winning and we expected to keep winning.” Carolina opened against North Carolina State, an eight seed but a rival. State led by seven early, but Carolina nudged ahead and squeaked by 56–53. The Tar Heels again had to come from behind in the semis, defeating Wake Forest 89–79 behind Miller’s 31 points.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 101
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear Class of 1969 Career Statistics Player
G
FG
FGA
FG%
FT
FTA
FT%
TS%
FTA Rate
Pts
PPG
Reb
RPG
PF
Joe Brown (1967)
26
31
83
37.3
10
20
50.0
38.9
24.1
72
2.8
63
2.4
26
Joe Brown (1968)
32
82
196
41.8
37
63
58.7
44.5
32.1
201
6.3
132
4.1
63
Joe Brown (1969)
31
54
120
45.0
21
38
55.3
46.7
31.7
129
4.2
85
2.7
36
Joe Brown (Career)
89
167
399
41.9
68
121
56.2
44.0
30.3
402
4.5
280
3.1
125
Bill Bunting (1967)
32
96
212
45.3
55
86
61.0
48.8
40.6
247
7.7
179
5.6
85
Bill Bunting (1968)
31
85
199
42.7
75
110
68.2
48.8
55.3
245
7.9
186
6.0
80
Bill Bunting (1969)
32
217
363
59.8
143
173
82.7
64.8
47.7
577
18.0
247
7.7
99
Bill Bunting (Career)
95
398
774
51.4
273
369
74.0
56.3
47.7
1069
11.3
612
6.4
264
Rusty Clark (1967)
32
181
328
55.2
85
123
69.1
57.8
37.5
447
14.0
330
10.3
107
Rusty Clark (1968)
31
187
393
47.6
115
168
68.5
51.7
42.7
489
15.8
341
11.0
100
Rusty Clark (1969)
28
145
282
51.4
113
157
72.0
56.5
55.7
403
14.4
258
9.2
75
Rusty Clark (Career)
91
513
1003
51.1
313
448
69.9
55.1
44.7
1339
14.7
929
10.2
282
Dick Grubar (1967)
32
103
209
49.3
88
141
62.4
53.3
67.5
294
9.2
94
2.9
90
Dick Grubar (1968)
32
97
227
42.7
64
90
71.1
47.8
39.6
258
8.1
97
3.0
76
Dick Grubar (1969)
28
142
286
49.7
80
106
75.5
54.1
37.1
364
13.0
94
3.4
59
Dick Grubar (Career)
92
342
722
47.4
232
337
68.8
51.9
46.7
916
10.0
285
3.1
225
Gerald Tuttle (1967)
30
25
53
47.2
23
39
59.0
51.0
73.6
73
2.4
14
0.5
35
Gerald Tuttle (1968)
29
18
47
38.3
14
23
60.9
43.2
48.9
50
1.7
20
0.7
32
Gerald Tuttle (1969)
32
21
52
40.4
12
16
75.0
45.3
30.8
54
1.7
19
0.6
24
Gerald Tuttle (Career)
91
64
152
42.1
49
78
62.8
46.8
51.3
177
1.9
53
0.6
91
Class of ’69 (1967)
152
436
885
49.3
261
409
63.8
52.5
46.2
1133
7.5
680
4.5
343
Class of ’69 (1968)
155
469
1062
44.2
305
454
67.2
48.6
42.7
1243
8.0
776
5.0
351
Class of ’69 (1969)
151
579
1103
52.5
369
490
75.3
57.2
44.4
1527
10.1
703
4.7
293
Class of ’69 (Career)
458
1484
3050
48.7
935
1353
69.1
52.8
44.4
3903
8.5
2159
4.7
987
Duke was the finals match-up, eager to regain their stature as top dog. Miller wouldn’t let it happen. He shot a phenomenal 13-14 from the field, scored 32 points, and North Carolina won the title 82–73. Lewis, with 26 points, was the only other Tar Heel in double figures as Carolina completed its three-day march through the rest of the “Big Four” Tobacco Road schools. UNC advanced to the NCAA Tournament for the first time since McGuire’s club won the national title in 1957. They didn’t have to go far: College Park, Maryland. Like the ACC Tournament, their toughest game was the opener, a 78–70 overtime win over a Princeton team that had handed them that initial defeat earlier in the season. Overmatched Boston College was thrashed 96–80 in the regional final, as Lewis scored 31. The close wins were part of a pattern that characterized North Carolina in the late 1960s. The team gives Smith the credit. “We left nothing to chance,” Brown said. “Every possible situation was rehearsed. You didn’t have to draw up plays at the end of a close game, you just had to execute the play you had practiced.” Carolina advanced to the Final Four, with undefeated UCLA, Houston, and unranked Dayton. Dayton was first for the Heels, an apparent romp to the finals. What happened next is still a subject for debate. Bunting thinks the Heels had UCLA on their mind, Tuttle said Smith
102 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
“wouldn’t allow that to happen,” and Grubar said Don May was the culprit. Whatever the reason, Dayton outclassed Carolina from the start. May had a 34-point, 15-rebound masterpiece for the Flyers and Carolina fell 76–62, shooting a miserable 36% from the field. North Carolina didn’t much care about the consolation match against Houston and played like it, falling 84–62. Still, Bunting was gratified at the large crowd that greeted the team back on campus, “Bringing the excitement back was as big a success as anything that happened on the floor.” Lewis graduated but Charlie Scott moved up from the freshman team. Scott was a more than adequate replacement for Lewis, and fellow sophomore Eddie Fogler added to the depth. Carolina began the season ranked fourth, dropped to seventh after a loss at Vanderbilt, then ran off a 20-game winning streak. Kentucky fell again, but the most impressive non-conference feat was a title at the Far West Classic in which Carolina beat three western powers—Stanford, Utah, and Oregon State. Utah was ranked seventh at the time and led Carolina 54–41 at the half. But the Heels fought back and pulled it out 86–84. The ACC was overmatched by the UNC juggernaut. Carolina wrapped up first place at 12–0, then lost its final two games, to South Carolina and at Duke, both by 87–86 scores. “We may have taken our foots off the pedal a bit,” Grubar said.
The Class of ’69
Photo bottom-right: NBAE/Getty Images Photo top-left: Collegiate Images/Getty Images
Even after Larry Miller moved on after the 1968 season, the Class of ’69 continued to win big. But the losses may have helped UNC refocus for the ACC Tournament. And, after an 83–70 opening round win against Wake Forest, they needed all of that focus in a brutal semifinal win over South Carolina, 82–79, in overtime. Grubar hit the go-ahead shot in the extra period and Tuttle wrapped it up with two foul shots. The title game was a laugher. North Carolina State had upset Duke in the other semifinal, but the Wolfpack was no match for the Tar Heels. Carolina was sluggish early and only led 31–26 at intermission, but they outscored State 56–24 in the second half. Miller scored 76 points in the three wins, culminating a spectacular two-year run in which he was both ACC Player of the Year and ACC Tournament MVP. Carolina entered the NCAAs ranked fourth and opened against third-ranked St. Bonaventure and their All-American center Bob Lanier. Playing in Raleigh, Miller and Scott combined for 48 points. But Clark was the key, scoring 18 points and fighting Lanier to a draw. The final was a 91–72 Carolina win. Davidson was the regional final opponent. There was no love lost between Davidson coach Lefty Driesell and Smith. Driesell was aggrieved that Smith wouldn’t schedule his program, and there was bad blood over the recruitment of Scott, who had originally committed to Davidson.
Davidson led much of the game, but the vaunted Carolina poise paid off. Clark’s 22 points and 17 rebounds keyed the 70–66 win. North Carolina met Ohio State in the Final Four, held in Los Angeles. Carolina took care of business, methodically defeating the Buckeyes 80–66, with all five starters scoring in double figures. In the other semifinal, UCLA mauled topranked Houston 101–69. The Carolina team saw part of the beat down, but Grubar said, “We still thought we could compete.” Smith wasn’t so sure. Right before the game, Smith informed the team that it would be running the Four Corners. Grubar said, “We wanted to run. There was some confusion. We weren’t all on the same page.” Brown noted, wryly, “I don’t remember it being up for a vote.” It probably didn’t matter. The 1968 Bruins are on the short list of truly great college teams. Alcindor had 34 points and 16 rebounds, along with an intimidating presence on defense. UCLA won 78–55. Miller graduated after 1968, but Scott, Clark, Bunting, Grubar, Brown, Tuttle, and Fogler returned, while a talented sophomore class augmented the bench. Scott was the superstar, but Bunting elevated his game to star level. “I was a big scorer in high school and as a freshman,” he recalled. “I wanted to do better. I stayed in Chapel Hill over the summer, lifted weights, ran cross-country, worked on my game.”
The Class of 1969 is the only group in ACC history to win three consecutive regular season, ACC Tournament, and NCAA Regional titles. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 103
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
Scott averaged 22 points per game in 1968–69 and Bunting 18. Grubar became a double-figure scorer, while Clark continued to dominate inside. There was one early disappointment. Carolina hoped to meet UCLA in the Holiday Festival in New York, but St. John’s upset the Heels before they could get to the Bruins. That was it for the losing for awhile. Carolina won 11 straight after the St. John’s loss to go 20–1 and land the #2 AP ranking; UCLA was first, of course. South Carolina ended the winning streak 68–66, and Duke defeated the Heels in Durham. “South Carolina and Duke were the two teams that we knew were evenly matched with us,” Tuttle said. Another 12–2 ACC mark, another regular season title, another ACC Tournament. The seniors were determined to go out with a bang, but the plans hit a roadblock. Carolina barely escaped Wake Forest in the semifinals, overcoming a ten-point deficit to win 80–72. Duke was the finals opponent. Blue Devils coach Vic Bubas had announced his retirement at the end of the season and his team was pumped. Grubar went down early in the game with a knee injury that would effectively end his career. Duke led much of the game, but Scott brought the Heels back with a phenomenal second half. Scott scored 40, and North Carolina won 85–74. But Grubar’s loss was important. “It was as much a psychological loss as a physical loss,” Bunting said. “He was such a solid presence.”
104 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
81–15 record, with five of the losses in the Final Four. None had especially distinguished careers in the pros, and none was ever the best player on the team, although Clark, Bunting, and Grubar all made All-ACC once in their careers. With Alcindor and company around, an NCAA title probably was out of the question.
But this quintet helped UNC win ACC regular season and tournament titles, and advanced to the Final Four in three consecutive seasons. The 1967–69 Tar Heels remain the only ACC team to accomplish this feat. A useful way to evaluate someone’s contribution to a group is to look at whether they improved that group. The Class of 1969 came to Chapel Hill at a time when the jury was still out on Dean Smith. The jury had made a strong proSmith ruling by the time they departed. As Bunting said, “We showed what kind of coach Dean Smith could be if he had enough talent to compete.” Dean Smith would never again lack the talent to compete. We all know how that turned out. MSP Jim Sumner is the author of three books on Southern sports history. He is a columnist for TheACC.com, Inside Carolina magazine, and Blue Devil Weekly magazine, and a contributor to numerous other publications. A resident of Raleigh, Sumner has degrees in history from Duke University and North Carolina State University.
Photo: Collegiate Images/Getty Images
During the 1969 postseason, sweet-shooting Charlie Scott spoiled Vic Bubas’s going-away party, then broke Lefty Driesell’s heart.
The 1969 Eastern Regionals were again held in College Park. North Carolina withstood a spirited Duquesne rally for an opening 79–78 win; Scott scored 22. Davidson again stood in the way. Driesell stated that he would rather die than lose again to Carolina. The game was a classic. Led by Mike Maloy’s 25 points and 13 rebounds, Davidson competed inside, something that rarely happened to UNC. But Bunting had one of his best games, 22 points, and Scott again was superb. His contested jumper at the buzzer left him with 32 points and UNC with an 87–85 win. Tuttle gave Carolina the chance for the win by drawing a charge with the game tied at 85. This win gave Bunting, Clark, and the rest of the Class of ’69 a 9–0 record in the ACC Tournament and a 6–0 record in the Eastern Regionals—15–0 in games where a loss would have ended their season. The Final Four gave UNC another opportunity to get the UCLA monkey off their backs, but Grubar’s absence killed any realistic chance. Grubar was a lockdown perimeter defender and Purdue was a perimeter team, especially All-America Rick Mount. “Mount’s range was incredible,” Bunting said. “A 30-footer was nothing to him.” Carolina fell behind early and never got back in it. Mount scored 36, guard Billy Keller added 20, and Purdue won 92–65. Clark, Bunting, and Scott scored 20, 19, and 16 respectively for Carolina. Drake easily won the consolation game. The Class of ’69 ended their tenure at Carolina with an
UPset Special Stack, ’Sheed, and the ’95 Tar Heels by Dan Wiederer
F
or two days, North Carolina’s players heard the doubts. Kentucky, all the experts and pundits insisted, was simply a better team. The Wildcats seemed decidedly bigger—deeper and more talented too. Yet when the Tar Heels left the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center on a Sunday night in late March 1995, they were the ones holding admission passes to the Final Four. They were the ones who had cut the nets down, using a stingy defensive effort to score a 74–61 upset of the topseeded Wildcats. It was a rugged and determined performance delivered at the ideal time. There was star sophomore Jerry Stackhouse earning Southeast Regional MVP honors with a workmanlike 18-point, 12-rebound, 6-assist effort. There were key bench contributions from Pearce Landry, Serge Zwikker, Pat Sullivan, and Shammond Williams. There was a focused and energized defensive effort that flustered Kentucky’s highpowered offense into 54 missed shots in 75 attempts. And, of course, there was the flying elbow of fiery forward Rasheed Wallace—the one that connected with Andre Riddick’s left cheek, the one that earned Wallace a technical foul, the one that became a heat-of-the-moment trademark in NCAA Tournament montages. And, yes, the one that fired Carolina up enough to finish off their run to the Final Four, allowing them to then shoot back at the critics who didn’t think they could get it done. “I’ve been a Carolina fan since I was in the crib and I’ve never seen a UNC team written off like this one has been,” Landry told reporters after the Kentucky win. “It was like we were a bunch of dogs. We come from the best conference in the land and were playing great. But everyone we heard said we couldn’t beat Kentucky. And we took it personally.” That was North Carolina’s final win of the 1994–95 season. The Tar Heels’ dream run ended on April Fool’s Day
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 105
Jeff McInnis and the Heels triumphed over favored Kentucky in the Elite Eight. at the Kingdome in Seattle, thanks to a frigid second half shooting performance that led to a 75–68 loss to Arkansas in the national semifinals. That defeat closed the back cover on a memorable season, filled with more twists and turns and heated drama than a season of ER. Unlike the 1993 season, things didn’t end with a national championship celebration in Chapel Hill. But unlike ’94, there was no underachieving, second-round fizzle-out either. In all it was a successful season that ended with Dean Smith making his tenth Final Four appearance and proving that, in the twilight of his career, he still had the flexibility and innovative thinking to adjust the pieces of his team in a manner that would produce the best possible result. When the season began, the expectations in Chapel Hill were again quite lofty. The Tar Heels opened the year as the #2 team in the country and were the media’s pick to win a talent-packed ACC. Smith knew that would be no cakewalk in a league loaded with superstars—Maryland’s Joe Smith, Wake Forest’s Tim Duncan and Randolph Childress, Georgia Tech’s Travis Best—and featuring seven teams out of nine that would be ranked at some point during the year.
106 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Carolina had the sizable task of replacing four key seniors (Eric Montross, Derrick Phelps, Brian Reese, and Kevin Salvadori) from the previous year’s squad and also seemed to have limited bench depth, putting even more pressure on sophomore stars Stackhouse and Wallace and senior Donald Williams to carry the load. With a thin bench and limited size, the Tar Heels’ margin for error was less than what Smith had been used to during his Hall of Fame career. But he also showed an open-minded willingness to adapt. And one of his best moves during the 1994–95 season was transitioning Stackhouse into the power forward slot, allowing the Tar Heels to often go small, utilizing what was essentially a four-guard lineup and attacking teams with their athleticism and outside shooting potency. With the green light permanently on for Carolina’s perimeter gunners (most notably Jeff McInnis, Donald Williams, Dante Calabria, and Stackhouse), the Tar Heels set school records in three-pointers made (266) and attempted (648) (see table). Dante Calabria’s eight threes in a win over Florida State in January tied a program record. So too did Williams’s 87 made threes for the season. And in an effort to keep his starters fresh, Smith also had his team play more zone defense than he had ever before. The Tar Heels also became a more focused and polished team when it came to executing the little things. Carolina made it to New Year’s Day with an undefeated record (9–0) and uncorked a ridiculous 129-point explosion on VMI a week before Christmas. That still stands as the most prolific scoring night ever by a Tar Heel team. But if there were thoughts that the top-ranked Heels would coast to the ACC title, an 80–70 loss at NC State in the conference opener quickly set the stage for a drama-filled two months. (That same night, Most Prolific 3-Pt Shooting #11 Duke fell to Clemson at Teams in UNC History Cameron Indoor Stadium to Best 3-Pt. % begin their downward spiral 1987 43.6% 1988 43.0% to 2–14.) Said N.C. State 1995 41.0% coach Les Robinson after the 2005 40.3% upsets, “Let’s just say ACC 1991 39.8% season has started.” Indeed Most Made 3s / Game it had. 2003 8.29 Carolina would rally 1995 7.82 2002 7.57 from that initial setback, 2005 7.49 forging its second nine-game 1996 7.34 winning streak of the year. Highest 3-Pt. Attempt Rate Included in that surge was 2003 39.8 the Tar Heels’ wild 102–100, 2002 37.6 double-overtime win at Duke 1996 31.7 1995 31.5 in a game that still receives 2006 30.7 the consensus billing as the
Photo on previous page: Adam Lyons/Getty Images Sport Photo on this page: Andy Lyons/Getty Images Sport
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
Upset Special most memorable contest in college basketball’s most celebrated rivalry. Sure, the highlight reels most often show Jeff Capel’s buzzer-beating, 35-foot runner that sent the game into double-overtime, and Stackhouse’s under-the-basket thunder jam over Cherokee Parks and Eric Meek (and the Stackhouse Strut that followed). But the game-winning plays were ultimately made by Donald Williams and fellow guard Jeff McInnis. Williams’s floater in the final minute of double overtime gave Carolina a 100–98 lead, and when McInnis stole Greg Newton’s ensuing inbounds, the Heels got the last bit of insurance they’d need to survive, leaving Cameron with a dramatic win that was instantly etched into Tobacco Road lore. That UNC won that renowned game remains one of the most underappreciated bits of trivia outside the state. Also relegated to footnote status: the loss dropped Duke, once ranked as high as #6 that winter, to 10–10 overall and 0–8 in the ACC as coach Mike Krzyzewski remained out of the picture recovering from back surgery. “This is the greatest basketball game I’ve ever been in,” Stackhouse said after the triumph.
Bottom left photo: Doug Pensinger/Getty Images Sport Top right photo: Doug Pensinger/Getty Images Sport
Wallace’s 22 points, 12 boards, and 6 rejections led Carolina over Georgetown in a Sweet 16 match-up.
Sharp-shooting Donald Williams led the ’95 Heels to one of the best three-point seasons in the program’s history.
Added Smith, “I’ve never seen anything like that—two teams just so competitive and going after it.” In retrospect, Smith probably should have seen it coming in a conference that was proving as feisty as ever that winter. Three weeks earlier, during a trip to Clemson, Tigers coach Rick Barnes had been ejected from a game in which UNC shot 51 free throws on the way to an 83–66 win. Barnes’s Tigers were hardly a factor in the conference championship race, but they embodied a certain pluck and edginess that lent a competitive bitterness to the winter. When the teams met again in Chapel Hill in midFebruary, the Tar Heels yawned to a 66–39 win. Yet they were so irritated by the Tigers that both Wallace and McInnis labeled Clemson’s players as dirty. With that fire stoked, the teams’ third meeting at the ACC Tournament was the most contentious yet. And in the final minutes, when Clemson’s Iker Iturbe delivered a hard foul on Stackhouse, Smith had seen enough. With a brash finger point, he hollered at Iturbe—a move which, of course, sent Barnes into a rage. And before you knew it, the young and energetic Clemson coach was screaming at UNC’s iconic leader, Smith
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 107
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear 1994-1995 Individual Statistics G
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG
TOPG PFPG A:TO
FG%
FT%
3Pt%
TS%
FTA Rate
3PtA Rate
Usage WORP/35 Rate
Stackhouse, Jerry
34
34.4 19.2
8.2
2.7
1.5
1.7
3.3
2.2
0.84
51.7
71.2
41.1
60.4
62.5
21.6
23.4
4.24
Wallace, Rasheed
34
30.3 16.7
8.2
1.0
0.5
2.7
1.8
2.8
0.67
65.4
63.1
33.3
65.7
38.7
0.8
19.1
4.51
Williams, Donald
34
34.2 15.5
2.9
2.4
0.7
0.1
1.2
1.1
2.10
42.8
62.9
39.9
53.9
22.0
49.3
19.2
1.48
McInnis, Jeff
34
34.3 12.4
4.1
5.3
1.3
0.0
2.1
2.2
2.50
49.1
66.7
39.3
57.8
31.3
35.4
17.7
2.81
Calabria, Dante
33
33.3 10.5
4.8
2.7
1.2
0.1
1.8
2.0
1.47
50.6
71.9
49.6
65.7
24.1
50.1
13.2
1.61
Landry, Pearce
34
15.2
3.9
1.6
1.6
0.4
0.1
1.1
1.4
1.42
45.4
81.5
39.7
60.6
27.8
59.8
13.3
0.28
Zwikker, Serge
34
10.0
2.9
3.0
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.83
48.8
67.7
–
52.3
38.8
0.0
13.0
0.60
Sullivan, Pat
13
9.2
2.2
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.75
52.9
75.0
20.0
61.7
70.6
29.4
11.1
0.04
Williams, Shammond
29
4.6
1.7
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.91
38.7
85.7
30.0
58.6
67.7
64.5
21.7
0.20
was yelling back, and both coaches seemed ready to rip each other’s heads off. The final minutes of that tense showdown in Greensboro included two more skirmishes—first when Stackhouse aggressively ripped a jump ball away from Clemson’s Bill Harder, and later when Harder undercut Donald Williams as the UNC guard went up for an exclamation point alley-oop dunk in the final seconds. “I’m glad to get out of that game alive,” Williams said afterward.
In 1995, Dante Calabria set UNC records by knocking down 8 triples in a single game and shooting 49.6% from behind the arc. 108 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
That was the feeling about the ACC season as a whole. UNC’s 9–1 start in conference play was later offset by three losses (at Maryland, at Virginia, and home to Wake Forest) in the final seven regular season games. That ultimately led to a four-way tie atop the conference standings with Carolina, Wake, Maryland, and Virginia all finishing 12–4. And the Tar Heels, ranked no lower than fourth in the AP poll at any point during the season, ultimately had to settle for a #2 seed in the NCAA Tournament after the Demon Deacons, led by Randolph Childress’s legendary 37-point explosion, scored an 82–80 overtime win in the ACC Tournament championship game. Happy to get away from ACC competition alive, Carolina refocused for the NCAA Tournament, determined to exorcise the demons of a nightmarish second-round loss to Boston College from a year before. “The whole team was hurt,” Williams said of that defeat. “We don’t want to go through the same thing this year.” Their opening NCAA Tournament win, an 80–70 squeaker past 15-seed Murray State, was sparked by a surprising, career-high 19-point outburst by Serge Zwikker, who saw extended duty as Rasheed Wallace was limited by a sprained ankle. And of course Stackhouse was, well, Stackhouse, delivering 25 points, 11 rebounds, and 5 assists. In Round 2, Carolina had to rally from 14 points down late in the first half to secure a 73–51 blowout of Iowa State. A 74–64 defeat of Allen Iverson and Georgetown in the Sweet 16—spearheaded by a signature Rasheed Wallace performance: 22 points (10-13 shooting), 12 rebounds, and 6 blocked shots—sent the Heels to the Southeast Regional title game where that tradition-rich battle with Kentucky came with a Final Four berth on the line. To this day, the showdown with the Wildcats in Birmingham remains a favorite of UNC fans. As much as anything, the Tar Heels had felt wrongly overlooked with so many experts and fans believing Kentucky, led by guards Tony Delk and Rodrick Rhodes, was a Final Four lock. The Wildcats, after all, had won their first three NCAA Tournament games by a combined 92 points. But as Smith tells the tale, the
Photo: Doug Pensinger/Getty Images Sport
Player
Upset Special
Bottom left photo: Andy Lyons/Getty Images Sport Top right photo: Doug Pensinger/Getty Images Sport
night before the game he told his players that Kentucky had already planned a regional championship party. That’s when Stackhouse raised his hand. “Yeah,” the All-American forward piped up. “And I’m going to go to it and celebrate.” Stackhouse backed his confidence up with his clutch play and contagious focus in the 74–61 win, taking control with his versatility and determination. “Even little babies, with a toy or something,” Stackhouse said, “the first thing they say is, ‘Mine, mine.’ It’s not really being selfish. That’s just the way they feel. They want possession. They want to take over. I think that’s something I’ve never grown out of. I want it to be mine, to seize the moment and have the opportunity when it appears.” The Tar Heels had even more to celebrate three days later when star class of 1995 recruit Vince Carter, a high-flying wing out of Florida, pledged his commitment to the program.
The versatile Stackhouse stepped up his play in the postseason, averaging 18.1 points, 8.4 rebounds, 3.6 assists, and 1.8 blocks in 8 games. And Smith certainly had to feel good heading for Seattle. His tenth Final Four trip as a coach came 43 years after his first trip to that stage as a player at Kansas. (His first Final Four as UNC coach came in 1967.) That track record of longevity and peak success had already cemented him as one of the game’s all-time legends. And with the 1994–95 squad, Smith’s ability to adapt to his team’s strengths and weaknesses played a major role in Carolina’s 28-win campaign. No one knew at the time Smith would coach only two more seasons or that the ’95 regular season championship would be his 17th and final ACC title (although he’d add the 1997 ACC Tournament championship for good measure). But everyone knew his brilliance as a coach. As Wake Forest coach Dave Odom said: “What boggles the mind about him, at least to me, are the number of nights he’s gone into the arena and been ready to compete on every single possession. I’ve not done it anywhere close to half as often. And there are nights when it seems the season will never end. And yet he’s there ready to go, always figuring a way to beat you.” MSP
If Dean Smith could dunk like ’Sheed, he’d scream too.
Dan Wiederer, has been living in North Carolina and covering the ACC since the 2004–2005 season. His college basketball coverage has recieved numerous awards, most notably from the Associated Press Sports Editors. His writing has also been recognized in The Best American Sports Writing series.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 109
UNC’S BEST PLAYERS T
he following tables list Carolina’s historical leaders in Wins over Replacement Player per 35 Games (WORP/35). This metric uses box score statistics to combine per-minute efficiency and playing time to determine the number of wins a player is worth relative to a “replacement-level” ACC player at his position (using a model developed with ACC data from 1980–2009). The model is normalized for relative strength of the conference (so players are credited for playing in historically tough years like 1991, 1993, and 2004, and penalized for playing in historically weak years like 2003, 2006, and 2008). The first table lists by position the highest WORP/35 seasons in Carolina history. Since the necessary ACC-level data isn’t available before 1980, earlier seasons are not included.
by Adrian Atkinson
The second table shows by position UNC’s career leaders in WORP since 1980. Players whose careers started before 1980, but ended in 1980 or later, are ranked using only their stats from 1980 and beyond. The third table lists by position UNC’s leaders using a harmonic mean between career WORP and highest single-season WORP. This is meant to rank players based on a combination of their career and peak value. This tends to help early-entry players (Felton moves from sixth in career WORP to third in harmonic mean). These lists certainly aren’t meant to be definitive rankings of Carolina’s greatest players; they don’t take into account things like postseason performance, for example. But they provide a good baseline for framing the “Who’s Greatest?” debate.
Highest WORP/35 Seasons by Position: 1980-2009 Point Guards Player WORP/35 1. T. Lawson, 2009, JR 5.47 2. K. Smith, 1987, SR 3.59 3. R. Felton, 2005, JR 3.52 4. R. Felton, 2004, SO 3.37 5. D. Phelps, 1993, JR 3.32 6. K. Smith, 1985, SO 3.27 7. E. Cota, 1998, SO 3.15 8. K. Smith, 1986, JR 3.08 9. J. McInnis, 1996, JR 3.04 10. J. Black, 1982, SR 2.98 11. D. Phelps, 1994, SR 2.92 12. T. Lawson, 2008, SO 2.89
Shooting Guards Player WORP/35 M. Jordan, 1984, JR 4.86 M. Jordan, 1983, SO 4.48 J. Forte, 2001, SO 4.02 A. Wood, 1980, JR 3.96 H. Davis, 1992, SR 3.71 Sh. Williams, 1998, JR 3.42 H. Davis, 1991, JR 3.14 D. Williams, 1993, SO 3.06 S. Hale, 1986, SR 3.04 S. Bucknall, 1989, SR 2.88 R. McCants, 2005, JR 2.86 W.Ellington, 2008, JR 2.68
Small Forwards Player WORP/35 R. Fox, 1991, SR 4.66 V. Carter, 1998, JR 3.98 R. McCants, 2004, SO 3.76 M. O’Koren, 1980, SR 3.74 A. Wood, 1981, SR 3.41 V. Carter, 1997, SO 3.23 D. Green, 2009, SR 3.03 J. Capel, 2001, JR 2.83 J.Stackhouse, 1994, FR 2.44 B. Reese, 1993, JR 2.42 M. Doherty, 1984, SR 2.36 A. Okulaja, 1999, SR 2.33
Power Forwards Player WORP/35 S. Perkins, 1984, SR 5.67 A. Jamison, 1998, JR 5.08 S. Perkins, 1983, JR 4.47 G. Lynch, 1993, SR 4.30 J. Worthy, 1982, JR 4.25 J. Stackhouse, 1995, SO 4.24 A. Jamison, 1997, SO 3.59 Joe Wolf, 1987, SR 3.33 G. Lynch, 1992, JR 3.23 J.R. Reid, 1988, SO 3.12 B. Wright, 2007, FR 2.90 A. Jamison, 1996, FR 2.89
Centers Player WORP/35 B. Daugherty, 1986, SR 5.47 E. Montross, 1993, JR 4.75 T. Hansbrough, 2009, SR 4.70 B. Daugherty, 1985, JR 4.67 S. Perkins, 1982, SO 4.62 S. May, 2005, JR 4.61 R. Wallace, 1995, SO 4.51 T. Hansbrough, 2008, JR 4.40 S. Perkins, 1981, FR 3.99 T. Hansbrough, 2007, SO 3.97 B. Haywood, 2001, SR 3.62 S. May, 2004, SO 3.56
Highest Career WORP by Position: 1980-2009 Point Guards Player Career WORP 1. Ty Lawson 11.24 2. Kenny Smith 11.23 3. Ed Cota 9.97 4. Derrick Phelps 9.19 5. Jeff Lebo 8.61 6. Raymond Felton 8.41 7. Jeff McInnis 6.56 8. King Rice 6.40 9. Jimmy Black 5.40 10. Jimmy Braddock 2.41 11. Quentin Thomas 0.83 12. Bobby Frasor 0.64
Shooting Guards Player Career WORP Michael Jordan 11.45 Hubert Davis 8.27 Rashad McCants 7.64 Shammond Williams 6.98 Wayne Ellington 6.38 Donald Williams 6.14 Steve Hale 6.06 Joseph Forte 5.55 Steve Bucknall 5.29 Dante Calabria 4.67 Henrik Rodl 3.34 Ranzino Smith 3.00
Small Forwards Player Career WORP Rick Fox 9.81 Vince Carter 8.64 Danny Green 7.51 Al Wood 6.88 Matt Doherty 6.31 Kevin Madden 5.87 Ademola Okulaja 5.58 Jason Capel 5.45 Brian Reese 5.18 Reyshawn Terry 3.97 Mike O’Koren 3.10 Curtis Hunter 2.50
Power Forwards Player Career WORP Antawn Jamison 11.60 George Lynch 11.52 James Worthy 8.16 J.R. Reid 8.01 Jerry Stackhouse 6.56 Joe Wolf 5.91 Jawad Williams 5.48 Brandan Wright 3.14 Kris Lang 3.08 David Noel 2.71 Deon Thompson 2.55 Dave Popson 2.35
Centers Player Career WORP Sam Perkins 17.93 Tyler Hansbrough 16.86 Brad Daugherty 14.01 Eric Montross 11.04 Brendan Haywood 9.13 Scott Williams 8.77 Sean May 8.38 Rasheed Wallace 6.42 Pete Chilcutt 6.35 Warren Martin 5.36 Kevin Salvadori 4.25 Serge Zwikker 3.91
Highest Harmonic Mean (Between Career and Best Single-Season) WORP by Position: 1980-2009 Point Guards Player Harmonic Mean 1. Ty Lawson 7.36 2. Kenny Smith 5.33 3. Raymond Felton 5.06 4. Ed Cota 4.99 5. Derrick Phelps 4.97 6. King Rice 3.93 7. Jeff McInnis 3.86 8. Jimmy Black 3.77 9. Jeff Lebo 3.70 10. Jimmy Braddock 2.35 11. Bobby Frasor 0.56 12. Quentin Thomas 0.53
Shooting Guards Player Harmonic Mean Michael Jordan 6.57 Hubert Davis 4.92 Shammond Williams 4.59 Rashad McCants 4.53 Joseph Forte 4.49 Donald Williams 4.23 Steve Bucknall 3.87 Wayne Ellington 3.77 Steve Hale 3.73 Dante Calabria 2.30 Henrik Rodl 2.15 Ranzino Smith 1.71
Small Forwards Player Harmonic Mean Rick Fox 6.32 Vince Carter 5.76 Al Wood 4.73 Danny Green 4.32 Kevin Madden 3.57 Jason Capel 3.53 Brian Reese 3.30 Matt Doherty 3.28 Ademola Okulaja 3.23 Mike O’Koren 3.10 Reyshawn Terry 2.51 Pat Sullivan 2.03
Power Forwards Player Harmonic Mean Antawn Jamison 7.34 George Lynch 6.65 James Worthy 5.52 Jerry Stackhouse 5.06 J.R. Reid 4.45 Joe Wolf 4.19 Brandan Wright 3.14 Jawad Williams 3.11 Marvin Williams 2.20 Kris Lang 1.90 Deon Thompson 1.78 Dave Popson 1.78
Centers Player Harmonic Mean Sam Perkins 7.84 Brad Daugherty 7.70 Tyler Hansbrough 7.35 Eric Montross 7.03 Sean May 6.17 Rasheed Wallace 5.21 Brendan Haywood 4.97 Scott Williams 4.34 Pete Chilcutt 4.29 Warren Martin 3.69 Serge Zwikker 2.69 Kevin Salvadori 2.06
A True Carolina Legend Getting to Know Woody Durham by Nolan Hayes
G
“
o where you go and do what you do.” It’s a simple request, one that wouldn’t seem to inspire much emotion or action. Yet that sentence serves as a rallying cry for rabid North Carolina basketball fans. When Woody Durham, the radio voice of the Tar Heels, utters that phrase over the airwaves, his listeners spring into action. Chairs in living rooms get rearranged. Pillows end up on different sofas. Lucky hats find their way onto heads. People who were listening to Durham’s broadcast in one room pick up their radios and move elsewhere in the house. Why? Because those nine short words, as avid Durham listeners know, mean that UNC needs help to win a game. They mean that the Tar Heels are locked in a tight contest and might even be—gasp!—trailing in the closing minutes. Durham began telling listeners to go where they go and do what they do years ago after chatting with friend Joyce Biggers at a social gathering. “She was talking about how whenever Carolina would get in trouble during a game, she would go into the kitchen,” Durham said. “That’s where she always went, and it always seemed to help.” Scientific? Not exactly. Superstitious? Definitely. And Durham can relate to the logic, or lack thereof, involved. He has two identical four-color pens with him during every broadcast, but he wraps a piece of transparent tape around the barrel of one of them so he can tell them apart. If the Tar Heels are behind at halftime, he changes pens. If they end up losing that game, he switches back to his original pen for the next game. But if they rally to win, he stays with the second pen until the next time they trail at the half. Durham’s ability to understand the passion of his listeners—to put himself in the living room of the average fan—has helped give him staying power enjoyed by few others in his profession. UNC is celebrating its 100th season
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 111
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
of basketball in 2009–10, and Durham is entering his 39th season on the job. Since he took over as the voice of the Tar Heels in 1971, UNC has compiled a record of 997–285, won or shared 18 ACC regular season titles, taken 13 ACC Tournament crowns, reached 13 Final Fours, and won four national championships. “To so many people, he has been the way they experience Carolina athletics,” said Adam Lucas, who publishes Tar Heel Monthly magazine and works with Durham on UNC’s radio broadcasts. “There’s a genuine belief that unless Woody says it, it didn’t happen. He is Carolina.” Durham, who at age 68 is a member of the North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame and has been named the state’s Sportscaster of the Year 12 times, began carving out that niche for himself as a young boy. Born Woody Lombardi Durham on August 8, 1941 in Mebane, a small town about 25 miles northwest of Chapel Hill, he grew up a UNC football fan during the era of Charlie “Choo Choo” Justice. Durham’s parents owned season tickets to UNC’s games, and Durham was small enough that he could squeeze between them without needing a seat himself. His love for UNC basketball began to blossom less than a decade later after his family moved to Albemarle. As was the case with many North Carolinians at the time, Durham became infatuated with the UNC team that went 32–0 en route to the 1957 NCAA championship. Durham became such a fan of that team—“They were so darned good that they were capturing the imagination of everybody,” he said—that he remembers his whereabouts
112 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
during UNC’s two triple-overtime victories in the Final Four. He watched UNC’s 74–70 win over Michigan State at a friend’s house Friday, then stayed at home with his parents the next night as the Tar Heels beat Wilt Chamberlain-led Kansas 54–53. “My dad and I were watching in the den,” Durham recalled. “My mother was not much of a fan, but she came in the room one time to get some cigarettes. About the time she came in, Chamberlain hit the shot that put Kansas ahead in the second half. Dad wouldn’t let her come back into the room because he thought she brought bad luck.” Durham’s newfound love of UNC basketball coincided with the advent of two other passions in his life. In a span of five months after the Tar Heels completed their perfect season, Durham met his wife and picked up his first job in radio. Durham developed an interest in public speaking during his days at Albemarle High, and he attended a two-week debate workshop at Wake Forest University to sharpen his skills. He met a girl named Jean from Winston-Salem at the workshop, and the couple clicked immediately. Jean was impressed that Durham already knew what he wanted to do with his life, and she agreed to visit him and watch him play football for Albemarle High one weekend that fall. By then, Durham was working at local radio station WZKY in addition to playing on the offensive line for Hall of Fame coach Toby Webb. Durham graduated from high school and enrolled at UNC, where he served as sports director at WUNC-TV for three years. He also continued dating Jean, who attended Meredith College in Raleigh. The couple
Photo on previous page: Collegiate Images/Getty Images Photo on this page: UNC Athletics Communication
Woody Durham, complete with his score sheet and lucky pen, gets ready to call another Carolina game.
A True Carolina Legend
Photo: UNC Athletic Communications
married in June 1963 after Durham graduated from UNC, and they celebrated their 46th wedding anniversary this year. Their ride together has been joyful after humble beginnings. Durham couldn’t find a job in North Carolina immediately after graduating from UNC, so he accepted a position at WBTW-TV in Florence, SC. He earned a plum position as sports director at WFMY-TV in Greensboro shortly thereafter, but he and Jean, a teacher, had such different schedules that they barely saw each other. In their early days of marriage, Jean had to wake up early to drop her husband off at work at 5 a.m. because the couple shared a car. Later, Durham missed out on some big moments in the lives of his two sons, Wes and Taylor. Durham was in Spain with UNC’s basketball team when Taylor took his first steps, and he missed several holidays at home because he was traveling with the Tar Heels. “The positives are that out of all this, we have really stayed very close as a family,” Jean said. “We learned that holidays are really just days. You can celebrate anytime, and it’s still very meaningful… It’s not an easy lifestyle, and it’s not a glamorous lifestyle. In the early years, it’s tough to keep everyone on a level where you don’t let things distract from what’s really the core of your family or the core of your relationship. There are not a lot of us in this business who have been married 46 years, because it doesn’t last. But it’s certainly been worth it in every way.” While Durham worked in Greensboro, he expanded his responsibilities and began broadcasting games for the ACC’s TV network. In 1971, North Carolina needed a new radio voice after Bill Currie departed for a TV job in Pittsburgh.
Homer Rice, UNC’s athletics director at the time, called Durham and asked him to meet him for lunch in Chapel Hill to discuss the job. Rice had admired Durham’s work on TV and thought he might be a good fit for the position. Rice didn’t even know Durham was a UNC graduate until the day before the meeting. “Homer got up and said, ‘I found out something interesting about you yesterday. I found out that you went to school here,’” Durham said. “And I said, ‘If you didn’t know until yesterday that I went to school here, and I’ve been doing ACC games for four years, then I’ve been doing a heck of a job.’ We both had a laugh about it.” Durham went home and talked about the situation with Jean, who encouraged him to pursue the job. Durham got support from basketball coach Dean Smith and football coach Bill Dooley, and he began his run as the voice of the Tar Heels in the fall of 1971. Durham remained at WFMY through 1977, when he moved onto WPTF-TV in Raleigh, and continued working in both TV and radio until 1981. Durham never went looking for a job with another school, but he did receive a pair of overtures from the University of Arkansas. Frank Broyles, the former Arkansas athletics director, twice asked him to head south to be a TV sports anchor in Little Rock and broadcast Razorbacks basketball and football in Fayetteville. Durham took a day to consider the possibilities, but he never visited Arkansas because he couldn’t imagine leaving his alma mater. Years later, UNC’s fans feel the same way. After all, many of them have not heard a basketball or football game on the Tar Heel Sports Network called by a play-by-play man other
While Durham hasn’t been around for quite 100 years, only longtime Tar Heel fans can remember pre-Woody broadcasts. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 113
With his encyclopedic memory of UNC hoops, Woody Durham can probably tell you if current partner Eric Montross outfought Joe Smith for this rebound. than Durham. The only games he has been absent from during his career are ones in which scheduling conflicts existed between the two sports. Durham counts four or five games that he almost missed because of illness, but he ended up being well enough to work each time. Perhaps his closest call came last season at Miami, where the Tar Heels defeated the Hurricanes 69–65 on February 16. “The night before, I could hardly talk,” he said. “I called some doctor friends, and they called in a prescription for me. I had to find a 24-hour pharmacy in Miami, but I was able to do the game.” Durham’s colleagues marvel at his durability and longevity in a job that is so demanding. Eric Montross, Durham’s radio partner and the starting center on UNC’s 1993 NCAA championship team, was born the same year that Durham became the voice of the Tar Heels. Jones Angell and Lucas, the other two members of UNC’s basketball broadcast team,
114 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
weren’t born yet. Although Durham is about twice the age of his partners, his memory is as sharp as theirs. “It’s funny,” Montross said. “We’ll be at dinner or something, and he’ll be talking about games I played in, and he remembers things that I don’t even remember. It’s great to hear his recount. The greatest fun for me is for him to kind of freshen those memories. “You hear about golfers who are particularly good at recounting individual shots or remembering what they were thinking on the third hole. Woody has that kind of memory of the at-Virginia game as a freshman or the at-Duke game or any of these particulars. He remembers them.” Angell and Lucas grew up in North Carolina listening to Durham’s broadcasts on the radio, never imagining that they might work side by side with him one day. Lucas first met Durham as a ninth grader at Apex High School when he received an assignment to write a one-page biographical essay. He wanted to write about Durham, and Durham agreed to meet with him for an interview. Lucas got his first car a couple of years later in 1993, a year he remembers mostly for UNC’s national title. He quickly acquired cassette tapes of UNC’s championship victories in 1982 and ’93, opting to listen to Durham rather than groove to music as he cruised around town. “I thought I was the coolest guy in the world, driving around listening to Woody yell, ‘The Tar Heels have won the national championship!’” Lucas said. “I can do pretty much every play from those games just as Woody called it.” Angell, whose parents graduated from UNC, listened to Durham as a youngster in Jacksonville, NC. He didn’t meet Durham until he attended UNC himself and began working as a radio intern. “I was awestruck the first time I saw Woody,” Angell admitted. “I was like, ‘Wow. That’s actually Woody.’ People are so excited to see him because he’s been in their homes watching the games with them.” That excitement is evident everywhere Durham travels. Montross attracts attention whenever the radio team goes out to eat—“Seven feet is hard to disguise,” he said—but just as many fans recognize Durham. People sitting at other tables with their backs to him snap their heads around when they hear a familiar voice in the background telling a story. Once they make the distinction in their minds that the voice is Durham’s, they say hello. Durham is popular even outside the state of North Carolina. At the 2007 ACC Tournament in Tampa, he returned to UNC’s hotel one night and was greeted by chants of “Woody! Woody! Woody!” from fans in the lobby. On the South Carolina coast, where Durham and his wife vacation each summer to recharge their batteries for the rigors of the
Photo: Doug Pensinger/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
Bottom-left photo: Grant Halverson/Getty Images Top-right photo: Collegiate Images/Getty Images
A True Carolina Legend upcoming college sports season, rare is the day in which Durham goes unrecognized by strangers. Many of the people who approach Durham forget to tell him their names, and he likes it that way. It’s not because he doesn’t care to know, but it’s because he loves the fact that the fans feel like he already knows them. “We don’t really think about it as an intrusion,” Jean said. “It’s a compliment to what he’s done with his career. It’s just evident that they think he knows who they are. It’s a really special thing that goes on among Tar Heel fans. It’s like they’re the only ones who have turned down the sound on the television. They have to tell him that.” So many fans turn down the sound on their TVs or carry porWhile always a Carolina fan, Durham (right) is a professional first and foremost. table radios to UNC games because Durham’s words augment their viewing experience. That’s standard piece of paper, contains all sorts of stats, background no accident. Durham’s work ethic is legendary, with Angell information, and personal notes on every player on both calling the amount of preparation Durham does for each rosters. Durham puts UNC on the left side and the opponent game “mind-boggling.” on the right, and he keeps up with points and fouls during Durham takes a full day to get ready for the upcoming the broadcast. The sheets are so packed with information that game, painstakingly writing by hand what he calls a “score they are difficult for others to decipher, but they make perfect sheet.” The color-coded sheet, several inches longer than a sense in Durham’s mind. Before the Internet became prevalent, Durham subscribed to seven or eight daily newspapers. He read every story he could about ACC basketball, perhaps pulling from an article just one nugget about a player or team that he didn’t already know. He’d clip the article, put it in a file, and pull it out when preparing his score sheet for that game later in the season. “I know that I probably overly prepare,” said Durham, who even brings a towel with him to the game in case someone spills a drink around him. “When the game is on the radio, I might use a third of what I prepared. But the thing about it is I never know what third it’s going to be.” Durham has passed on that work ethic to his sons, both of whom pursued careers in radio after graduating from TV announcers aren’t for everyone: Many Carolina fans mute the TV and turn up Woody Durham’s radio call. Elon University. Wes has been the voice
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 115
of Georgia Tech football and men’s basketball since 1995. A five-time Georgia Sportscaster of the Year who sounds much like his father on the air, he also began broadcasting NFL games for the Atlanta Falcons in 2004. Taylor is a network affiliate manager for ISP Sports in Winston-Salem. “The greatest compliment to him is that his boys think so much of him and what he does and how he does it that they strive hard to be credible in the same ways,” Jean said. “It’s very important to them because they see how their father has handled himself as a family man and as a professional.” The “professional” part has always been important to Durham. Yes, he wants the Tar Heels to win every game he broadcasts, but he never lets that wish affect his performance. Lucas remembers a game from last season’s NCAA Tournament in which he had to find a different seat because he couldn’t see over the opposing team’s radio broadcasters, who kept standing in the row in front of him to cheer. That line between professional and unprofessional is one that Durham never crosses.
“There’s no question who Woody Durham wants to win the game,” Lucas said. “But he’s never going to stand up and pump his fist when Tyler Hansbrough makes a threepoint play.” The closest that Durham gets to pulling for the Tar Heels on air is when he tells his listeners that it’s time to “go where you go and do what you do.” And when he says those words, his most loyal listener gets to work. “If it starts getting close, if we need anything ironed or dusted or whatever, I’m going to be doing that because I can’t sit still,” said Jean, who listens to all of her husband’s broadcasts while watching the games on TV. “I can’t just sit there and watch it. I have to be doing something. Our friends joke that we definitely have the cleanest house during basketball season.” The question is how much longer the Durham home will remain pristine all winter. As much as Durham loves his job, he knows he can’t do it forever. So how long will he continue? This will be his 39th season, and 40 seems like a nice, round number that he could retire on. But so does 100, as in this being the 100th season of UNC basketball. Or he might just keep going, blowing past both of those milestones. If Durham sees the finish line, he’s not saying where it is. For now, his plan is to keep going where he’s going and doing what he’s doing. And that’s just what UNC fans love to hear. “I had no idea that my run would last as long as it has,” Durham said. “I don’t have a timeline as far as how long I want to do this. My health is good, and I’m having a good time. People are telling me that as long as that’s the case, you should do it as long as you want to. I don’t want to be one of those guys who stays so long that they almost have to carry me out of the booth because I’m no good anymore. “I’ve been very fortunate. My health has been good, and my voice is still strong. That’s what keeps me thinking I can still do it. I do enjoy it.” MSP
Unlike Sean May, Durham can remember when UNC actually wore these uniforms in the early ’80s. 116 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Nolan Hayes is a freelance sportswriter who has covered ACC athletics for over a decade. He spent 6+ years working at The HeraldSun (Durham, NC), serving as the newspaper’s UNC beat reporter from 2005–07.
Photo: Grant Halverson/Getty Images
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
Marches to Remember The Greatest Postseason Performances in Tar Heel History by Adrian Atkinson
A
fter witnessing one of the most dominant tournament runs in North Carolina hoops history, many were left wondering: Where do the performances of Lawson, Ellington, and Hansbrough rank in the Tar Heel pantheon of postseason heroes? And, while it can be virtually impossible to compare players across eras due to rule changes (e.g., the addition of a shot clock and three-point line), that didn’t stop me from trying. Before we begin, a couple of guidelines: These rankings and accompanying statistics include both ACC Tournament (ACCT) and NCAA Tournament (NCAAT) games. While Roy Williams may have slightly de-emphasized the ACCT (and it is certainly less meaningful than it was in the pre-1975 era when a team had to win its conference tournament to advance to the NCAAs), those are still the types of games that can build one’s legacy. A team/player must have five combined postseason games to qualify for the list. That’s just ACCT and NCAAT contests; any NIT action is disregarded for the sake of this exercise (although, again, the pre-1975 edition of the NIT was a far more prestigious event than the current version for which Sidney Lowe and the Wolfpack strive to qualify). Only Carolina teams and players in the ACC era (1954-current) are eligible for this list—sorry to “Hook” Dillon and the 1946 White Phantoms. So after applying the guidelines, we are left with a list of 27 Tar Heel teams from which to select players: 1957, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Most ACC historians would agree that this list encompasses virtually all of the truly great North Carolina squads—the obvious exceptions being 1924, the aforementioned 1946, 1984, and 1986. Since there are 27 UNC teams eligible from which to draw players, I decided to do a Top-27 list. So with these ground rules
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 117
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear (due to a broken index finger sustained in the ACCT); 20 points and 8 boards in the championship game vs. Marquette The Bad: Missed all or most of two postseason games, and effectiveness was greatly reduced in a third, due to the aforementioned finger injury
Matt Doherty (JR, 1983) The Good: 15.0 PPG, 3.8 A:TO, 63.8 TS%, 3.34 WORP/35 The Bad: Just a role player—very similar to Jason Capel’s postseason of 2001, but numbers were not quite as good or efficient across the board
Newly minted Hall of Famer Michael Jordan had some great moments at UNC, but couldn’t crack the top 27. in place, let’s give a nod to some players that just missed the cut and then start counting them down from #27 to #1.
Honorable Mention Pete Brennan (JR, 1957) The Good: 14.3 PPG and 12.6 RPG on a championshipwinning team The Bad: FG% of 40.6 (that was even bad for an era defined by lower shooting percentages)
The Good: 20.0 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 79.2 FT%, 3.21 WORP/35 The Bad: Fouled out and struggled in an ACCT loss to NC State; only shot 42.1% (16-38) in the East Regional; Spoiler alert: It seems crazy not to have a single Jordan postseason in the Top 27, but it is more a testament to the great history of Carolina basketball than a reflection of MJ’s collegiate postseason performance. (He had plenty of terrific moments in both ’83 and ’84 and, oh yeah, he hit a pretty important shot in ’82 too.)
Kenny Smith (SR, 1987) The Good: 13.7 PPG, 8.0 APG (UNC postseason record), 1.7 SPG, 2.65 WORP/35; didn’t give up the uniform without a
Larry Miller (JR, 1967) The Good: 20.0 PPG, 9.1 RPG, 81.4 FT% The Bad: Shot just 44.2% from the field in the postseason, including a dreadful 11-38 (28.9%) in two Final Four games
Rusty Clark (JR, 1968) The Good: Double-double machine averaged 14.7 PPG and 12.0 RPG in the ’68 postseason—he also averaged a postseason double-double in ’67, and 15.0/9.1 in ’69 The Bad: Badly outplayed by Lew Alcindor in the ’68 national championship game (34 and 16 for Alcindor vs. 9 and 8 for Clark), which puts Dr. Clark on an extremely long list of centers dominated by Alcindor
Bill Bunting (SR, 1969) The Good: 15.7 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 55.7 FG%, 78.0 FT% The Bad: Nothing too glaring—this is just an extremely tough list to crack
Walter Davis (SR, 1977) The Good: 15.0 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 57.6 FG%, 81.5 FT%, 62.7 TS%—all with taped-together fingers on his shooting hand
118 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Antawn Jamison ripped Duke for 22 points and 18 rebounds as Carolina won the 1998 ACC Tournament championship.
Photo on previous page: Gregor y Shamus/Getty Images Top-left photo on this page: Jim Rogash/Getty Images Bottom-right photo on this page: Craig Jones/Getty Images Sport
Michael Jordan (SO, 1983)
Marches to Remember fight, scoring 25 points with 7 assists in a career-ending Elite Eight loss to Syracuse The Bad: 4.0 TOPG, 41.0 FG%
Joe Wolf (SR, 1987) The Good: 15.6 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 2.0 A:TO, 62.0 FG%, 56.3 3Pt%, 68.5 TS%, 2.92 WORP/35 The Bad: See Bill Bunting’s “bad”—very good is not always enough in a program with as much history as Carolina’s
Rick Fox (SR, 1991) The Good: 15.0 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 4.3 APG, 1.6 SPG 3.38 WORP/35—joined Capel in 2001 as the only Heels to average 10-7-4 in a postseason; led UNC with 25 points in a 96–74 dismantling of the Dookies in the 1991 ACCT championship game The Bad: 33.3 three-point percentage, including 0-7 against Kansas in the Final Four; while 5-22 from the field wasn’t the way Fox wanted to end his Carolina career, he still chipped in 9 rebounds and 7 assists against the Jayhawks—the type of versatility that defined his UNC tenure
Hubert Davis (SR, 1992) The Good: 20.2 PPG, 78.9 FT%, 2.87 WORP/35 The Bad: Just 5-25 (20.0%) from behind the arc in the postseason
The Good: 13.5 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 2.3 BPG, 62.5 FG%, 3.21 WORP/35; exploded for 33 points, 6 rebounds, and 5 blocks against #1 pick Joe Smith in the ACCT semifinals The Bad: Outplayed by Tim Duncan in the ACCT championship game before ’Sheed left late with an ankle injury; hobbled Wallace was largely ineffective during the first two NCAAT games (allowing lightly-used Serge Zwikker to shine in a first-round squeaker vs. Murray State)
Carolina avoid a Round of 32 upset at the hands of UNCCharlotte The Bad: A horrific 2-12 (1-9 on threes) shooting performance against Utah in the Final Four; this followed a 1-13 (1-8) in the previous season’s Final Four match-up against Arizona; Shammond played terrific basketball throughout both the ’97 (16.1 PPG, 4.5 APG, 2.12 A:TO) and ’98 postseasons—it’s a shame that we tend to remember the Final Four flameouts more than all the strong performances by Williams that helped get the Heels there in the first place
Antawn Jamison (JR, 1998)
Brendan Haywood (SR, 2001)
The Good: 19.0 PPG, 12.1 RPG, 3.44 WORP/35; a dominating 22 and 18 as the Heels overwhelmed Duke in the 1998 ACCT championship game The Bad: After shooting 61.3% from the field and 68.7% from the line during the regular season, those numbers dropped to 47.4% and 55.8% in the postseason; shot just 7-19 before kissing the Alamodome floor in a career-ending loss to Utah in the Final Four
The Good: 13.4 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 3.0 BPG, 54.3 FG%, 3.35 WORP/35 The Bad: Disappointing team performance in the postseason, and Haywood himself was just average in the Duke and Penn State losses
Rasheed Wallace (SO, 1995)
Photo: Collegiate Images/Getty Images
Bob McAdoo snatched down 11.8 boards per game in the 1972 postseason while helping the Heels to the Final Four.
Shammond Williams (SR, 1998) The Good: 18.4 PPG, 3.1 APG, 97.4 FT%, 2.95 WORP/35; 32 points (on 6-9 from behind the arc) and 5 assists to help
Rashad McCants (JR, 2005) The Good: 16.5 PPG, 1.3 A:TO, 50.0 3Pt%, 2.55 WORP/35; 14 first-half points to lead UNC to a 13-point halftime lead vs. Illinois in the national championship game The Bad: 0 points in the 2nd half vs. Illinois; wild last-minute miss bailed out by Marvin Williams’s tip-in
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 119
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear
Ty Lawson (FR, 2007) The Good: 11.0 PPG, 6.4 APG, 80.0 FT%, 3.5 A:TO, 3.29 WORP/35; 20 points and 8 assists in a Round of 32 win against Michigan State The Bad: After a brilliant ACCT and opening weekend of the NCAAT, Lawson finally played like a freshman during the East Regional (4-19 from the field, 4.5 PPG, 1.7 A:TO); his lack of experience was especially crucial during the team’s late-game collapse vs. Georgetown And, with the honorable mentions covered, here is the Top 27.
27. Jason Capel (JR, 2001) Key Postseason Stats: 13.0 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 4.8 APG, 68.7 TS%, 47.8 3Pt%, 4.8 A:TO; 3.67 WORP/35 No, that’s not a misprint—the much-maligned Jason Capel has (barely) cracked the Top 27. Granted, the 2001 postseason was a difficult one for Matt Doherty’s Tar Heels. After climbing to #1 in the nation by mid-February, Carolina’s stumble down the backstretch included a blowout loss in the ACCT championship to Duke and a Round of 32 NCAAT upset at the hands of Penn State. All-American Joe Forte’s play was especially brutal in the postseason—32.9% from the field and 22.7% from behind the arc, and an A:TO of 0.6. But amidst all the postseason dark clouds, there emerged one silver lining in Carolina blue. Consummate role player Capel strung together the finest five-game stretch of his Tar Heel career, amassing incredibly efficient shooting and assist-toturnover numbers. While he was still playing second banana to Forte (who attempted 85 postseason field goals to Capel’s 44), Capel showed why he was one of the most versatile glue guys in UNC history. Instead of remembering his failed attempt at being the top dog during The Season That Never Happened, I propose that we remember this version of Jason Capel (circa 2001) when reflecting back on his contributions as a Tar Heel.
High-flying Vince Carter was Carolina’s best player during the 1998 postseason.
25. Mitch Kupchak (JR, 1975) Key Postseason Stats: 17.8 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 59.7 FG% Kupchak amassed three consecutive double-doubles (16/14, 14/15, 11/12) as the Heels captured the 1975 ACCT championship. While his play was overshadowed by Phil Ford’s brilliance, Kupchak’s steady post presence was integral to Carolina’s ’75 postseason run. He capped off his stellar march through March with a 36-point, 14-rebound performance against Boston College (albeit in a largely meaningless East Regional third place game after UNC had lost to Syracuse).
26. J.R. Reid (FR, 1987)
120 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
24. Mike O’Koren (FR, 1977) Key Postseason Stats: 16.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 62.0 FG%, 63.9 TS% O’Koren joins J.R. Reid and Phil Ford as the only freshmen to crack the Top 27. In what would become a recurring theme during his UNC career, O’Koren stepped up the biggest in the most important games of the ’77 postseason. In the ACCT championship game, O-K contributed 21 points and 8 rebounds in a 75–69 victory over Virginia. Three weeks later, in a Final Four game at Atlanta’s Omni, O’Koren lit up Jerry Tarkanian’s Runnin’ Rebels for 31 points (on 14-19 from the
Photo: Craig Jones/Getty Images
Key Postseason Stats: 17.6 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 58.2 FG%, 62.2 TS%, 3.47 WORP/35 Freshman phenom Reid stepped up his play in the postseason (from his regular season numbers of 14.0 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 60.3 TS%). The only thing sweeter than Reid’s hairstyle (a selfdescribed “ski-slope box with fade on the side,” according to Sports Illustrated) was his low-post game. He used his soft touch, smooth footwork, and Kardashian-like derriere to devastate Michigan and Notre Dame in consecutive NCAAT games—27 and 10 vs. Michigan in the Round of 32 followed by 31 (on 1518 from the field) and 5 against the Irish in the Sweet 16.
Marches to Remember field) and 8 boards. Each one of those points mattered, too, in Carolina’s 84–83, come-from-behind victory. Although he’d play three more seasons of productive, consistent basketball as a Tar Heel, O’Koren’s signature game remained that freshman-year Final Four performance against UNLV. Against Marquette for the national championship, O’Koren came up big again with a double-double (14 points, 11 rebounds) before fouling out.
23. Brad Daugherty (JR, 1985) Key Postseason Stats: 15.4 PPG, 11.4 RPG, 1.1 BPG, 68.2 FG%, 69.3 TS%, 3.79 WORP/35 Like his entire North Carolina career, Brad Daugherty’s 1985 postseason was a monument to scoring efficiency. In his seven tournament games that year, Big Brad’s field goal percentages were: 66.7%, 66.7%, 54.5%, 73.3%, 75.0%, 62.5%, and 77.8%. All told, he scored 108 postseason points on just 66 field goal attempts. His rebounding was nearly as consistent; Daugherty secured at least eight rebounds in every postseason game (with double-digit efforts in five of the seven contests). In the season-ending loss to Villanova—the eventual national champs and Cinderella story—Daugherty scored 17 of UNC’s 44 points and corralled 12 of the team’s 29 rebounds.
22. Bob McAdoo (JR, 1972) Key Postseason Stats: 18.7 PPG, 11.8 RPG, 75.7 FT% In his only season in Chapel Hill, future NBA Hall of Famer McAdoo played a huge role in carrying Carolina to the 1972 Final Four. Like Kupchak (whose ’75 postseason numbers were eerily similar to McAdoo’s in ’72), McAdoo was a double-double machine for the Heels. He saved his best performances for the biggest stage—a 24-point, 15-rebound effort against Florida State in the national semifinals, followed by a monstrous 30 and 19 in the national third-place game (a win over Louisville).
the arc). Unlike Donald Williams and Ellington, Davis’s finger is missing a national championship ring—but Hubert’s postseason shooting exploits should still be ranked right alongside those other Carolina legends.
20. Dennis Wuycik (SR, 1972) Key Postseason Stats: 19.3 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 53.5 FG%, 81.6 FT%, 61.5 TS% Dennis joined fellow Western Pennsylvanians George Karl and Steve Previs to form three-fifths of Carolina’s 1972 Final Four starting lineup. And like fellow Beaver County native Joe Namath, Wuycik saved some of his best games for the brightest lights. He led the Heels with 24 points (on 9-13 shooting) in an ACCT championship game victory over Elmore, McMillen, and the Terps. In two Final Four games, Wuycik averaged 23.5 points and 7 caroms. The aggressive forward bulled his way to 49 free throw attempts in six postseason contests.
19. Vince Carter (JR, 1998) Key Postseason Stats: 15.8 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 1.6 A:TO, 1.0 BPG, 56.0 FG%, 40.9 3Pt%, 63.2 TS%, 3.63 WORP/35 After scoring 20-plus points in just four of the season’s first 34 games, a more assertive, postseason Carter reached that mark in three of his last four contests. Included in that stretch were a 20-point, 10-rebound effort against Michigan State in the Sweet 16, and a team-high 21-point outburst against
Photo: Gregor y Shamus/Getty Images
21. Hubert Davis (JR, 1991) Key Postseason Stats: 17.1 PPG, 1.6 A:TO, 56.3 FG%, 95.0 FT%, 58.8 3Pt%, 71.0 TS%, 3.41 WORP/35 If only for a couple of better breaks in the 1991 Final Four (or better shooting by Tar Heel star Rick Fox), Hubie’s 1991 postseason might be remembered as fondly by Carolina fans as those of his fellow shooting guards Donald Williams and Wayne Ellington. While both “The Donald” and Ellington had fantastic postseason runs, neither scored as efficiently as Davis in ’91. Hubert made 20-34 three-pointers, 19-20 free throws, and averaged 1.57 points per field goal attempt. In the Final Four against Roy Williams’s Kansas team, Davis led Carolina with 25 points on 9-16 shooting (2-4 from behind
Wayne Ellington knocked down 25-48 threes in the 2009 postseason. Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 121
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear Utah in the Final Four. The high-flying Daytona wing could always finish an Ed Cota lob. But in the ’98 postseason, he finally started to display with consistency all of the offensive gifts that would make him an eight-time NBA All-Star. Carter knocked down perimeter jumpers (9-22 on three-pointers), scored in the post, attacked the rim and drew fouls (33 postseason free throw attempts), and continued to provide plenty of highlight-reel finishes above the rim. While the ’98 Utah loss was certainly a painful one, no Tar Heel fan can blame that defeat on Vince Carter failing to show up.
18. Sam Perkins (SO, 1982) Key Postseason Stats: 13.6 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 1.1 BPG, 80.5 FT%, 59.6 TS%, 3.92 WORP/35 Perkins’s numbers don’t jump off the page at you (except, perhaps, for the pace-adjusted WORP/35)—but much of that is due to how slowly the ’82 Heels played (as an essentially five-deep postseason team in a pre-shot clock era). Dean Smith’s 1982 champs averaged 61.0 possessions per 40 minutes, a full 20% slower than Roy Williams’s 2009 title-winning team (at 75.9 possessions/40). But at any tempo, Perkins remains one of Carolina’s truly underrated superstars. “Big Smooth” saved his signature postseason performance for the
national semifinal against Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma. Matched against formidable Cougar bigs (and future pros) Larry Micheaux and Akeem Olajuwon, Perkins exploded for 25 points and 10 boards. The performance is even more impressive when considering that “Sleepy Sam” scored his 25 points on just 11 attempted field goals (9-11 from the floor, 7-7 from the stripe).
17. Phil Ford (JR, 1977) Key Postseason Stats: 17.0 PPG, 4.9 APG, 91.7 FT%, 54.5 TS% Ford dominated the first four games of the ’77 postseason (two ACCT and two NCAAT games), averaging 24.8 points before hyperextending his elbow late in a Sweet 16 showdown vs. Notre Dame. That included 26 points in the ACCT championship game against Virginia, 27 in the Round of 32 against Purdue, and 29 against the Golden Domers. Before the elbow injury, Ford was heading towards one of the truly legendary postseasons in Carolina’s rich history (especially considering the probable championship that the Heels would have won sans injury). In three games following the hyperextension (including the two Final Four match-ups), Ford was limited to just 6.7 points per game and 34.8% shooting (8-23).
16. George Lynch (SR, 1993) Key Postseason Stats: 14.2 PPG, 10.4 RPG, 2.0 SPG, 52.8 TS%, 3.52 WORP/35 A captain and the senior leader of the ’93 champs, George Lynch is considered one of the great “intangibles” guys in Carolina history. For example, Lynch’s (and Phelps’) timeoutinducing trap of Chris Webber didn’t show up in his box-score line. It did, however, seal UNC’s third NCAA championship and cement his legacy as one of the Heels’ greatest on-court leaders. But let’s not discount Lynch’s tangible contributions— his box scores were pretty healthy in their own right, including a pair of double-doubles in the Final Four (14 and 10 vs. Kansas, 12 and 10 vs. Michigan). He also dominated the East Regional, averaging 22 points, 12 rebounds, and 3.5 steals in tight victories against Arkansas and Cincinnati.
Eric Montross consistently stepped up his play in the postseason. 122 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
Key Postseason Stats: 17.2 PPG, 1.2 SPG, 85.7 FT%, 43.9 3Pt%, 61.9 TS%, 3.20 WORP/35 If this were solely a list of top Final Four performances, Williams would certainly rank in the top three (if not #1). His Final Four shooting numbers were ridiculous, as he scored 50 points on 15-23 from the field, 10-10 from the line, and 10-14 from behind the arc—an insane TS% of 90.1 (with an eFG% of 87.0). When considering only the two contests in New Orleans, Donald’s WORP/35 was an astounding 7.32.
Photo: Focus on Sport/Getty Images
15. Donald Williams (SO, 1993)
Marches to Remember Alas, I have chosen to use the entirety of a player’s postseason run to assign his rank on this list. And in the first seven games of the ’93 postseason, “The Donald” shot a mortal 40.4% (and 36.5% from deep). When accounting for the fact that Williams was essentially a one-dimensional player (1.8 RPG, 0.9 APG, 0.9 A:TO in the postseason) for Carolina, he falls to #15 (even when given a substantial “intangibles” bump for the legendary clutchness of his Final Four shooting).
14. Wayne Ellington (JR, 2009) Key Postseason Stats: 19.4 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.8 A:TO, 53.7 FG%, 52.1 3Pt%, 66.3 TS%, 3.40 WORP/35 It only makes sense to group Williams and Ellington backto-back on this list. Each shooting guard’s unconscious Final Four performance paved the way to a Tar Heel title. And while Ellington didn’t play quite as well as Williams in the Final Four (19.5 PPG, 69.9 TS%), his play across the entire postseason journey was clearly superior (both from a shooting/scoring and overall contribution perspective). In addition to “Making It Wayne” at an 80% clip (8-10) from deep in the Final Four, Ellington’s postseason highlights included 24 points in an ACCT loss to Florida State and 23 in a hardfought Round of 32 victory against LSU.
13. Raymond Felton (JR, 2005)
Photo: Focus on Sport/Getty Images
Key Postseason Stats: 16.0 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 5.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 1.8 A:TO, 75.0 FT%, 44.7 3Pt%, 59.3 TS%, 3.71 WORP/35 Many of Felton’s most memorable moments of the 2005 championship run occurred during the waning minutes against Illinois. Beginning with a clutch three off the dribble over Deron Williams (Billy Packer’s so-called “shutdown man”), Felton made most of Carolina’s big plays down the stretch—including converting three of four free throws and getting a game-clinching steal by anticipating the passing lane to perfection. The warrior from Latta was a paragon of consistency throughout UNC’s championship run—especially in the final three games of the NCAAT, during UNC’s march through the Big Ten. Against Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Illinois, Felton compiled points-rebounds-assists lines of 17-5-7, 16-8-7, and 17-3-7, respectively. For good measure, he added 29 points in an opening round ACCT victory over Clemson.
12. Tyler Hansbrough (JR, 2008) Key Postseason Stats: 20.9 PPG, 9.1 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 53.0 FG%, 76.8 FT%, 58.1 TS%, 4.10 WORP/35 Hansbrough capped off his junior season (in which he was a unanimous Player of the Year selection) with an impressive postseason performance. Carolina fans will forever remember
James Worthy’s combination of finesse finger-rolls and powerful dunks paved the way to Dean Smith’s first championship in 1982. his game-winning baseline jumper (and subsequent celebration “dance”) to defeat Virginia Tech in the ACCT semis—the final pair of his 26 points on the afternoon. He followed that up on Championship Sunday with an 18-point, 11-rebound double-double versus Clemson. But “Psycho T” saved his best postseason outing for the Elite Eight showdown with Rick Pitino’s Louisville Cardinals. In that match-up, Hansbrough erupted for 28 points and 13 boards—including two huge jumpers in the game’s final minutes. By expanding his game (and hitting a contested deep jumper off the bounce) when his team needed it the most, Hansbrough again demonstrated his unrivaled will to win.
11. Al Wood (SR, 1981) Key Postseason Stats: 18.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 53.7 FG%, 56.3 TS%, 3.83 WORP/35 After a consistent but rather pedestrian first five games of the 1981 postseason (13.2 PPG on 47.5% shooting), Wood closed his Carolina career with a bang. His hot streak began with a 21-point, 17-rebound effort to lead UNC past Kansas State and into the Final Four. Then, in his signature game as a Tar Heel (and one of the signature individual performances in the program’s history), Wood scorched Ralph Sampson and Virginia for 39 points and 10 boards (while shooting 14-19 from the field and 11-13 from the line). The Georgia senior went out swinging, leading the Heels in points (18) and rebounds (6) against Indiana in the title game. It wasn’t
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 123
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear his postseason performance are: consistent and efficient. Montross scored at least 15 points in eight of Carolina’s nine postseason games; he grabbed at least seven boards in seven of the nine. And his worst single-game field goal percentage during that run was 54.5%—in the other eight games he shot at least 60% from the field. While his calling card was consistency, #00 had a couple big games too. In a two-point loss to Georgia Tech in the ACCT championship, Eric carried the Heels with 19 points and 17 rebounds. Then, in the national semifinal against Kansas, Montross (hampered by some foul trouble) exploded for 23 points in just 26 minutes.
8. Jerry Stackhouse (SO, 1995)
enough, of course, against Isiah Thomas and the Hoosiers. While uncrowned, Al Wood still finished his career like a champion—averaging 26 points and 11 rebounds over his final three collegiate games.
10. Larry Miller (SR, 1968) Key Postseason Stats: 21.9 PPG, 8.6 RPG, 38.7 MPG Miller only shot 47.3% from the field and 68.9% from the line during the 1968 postseason. Like the rest of the Heels, he also struggled against a loaded UCLA squad in the national championship game (5-13 shooting, 7 turnovers). That’s the bad news; the good news is that he averaged 22 points and 9 boards while hardly ever leaving the court. Combine that with an ACCT championship and march to the NCAA finals, and it is enough to crack the top ten in the Carolina postseason pantheon. Miller’s best postseason games included a 31-point performance in the ACCT first round against Wake Forest, and a 27-point, 16-rebound outing in the East Regional semifinal versus St. Bonaventure (and Bob Lanier).
9. Eric Montross (JR, 1993) Key Postseason Stats: 16.1 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 1.3 BPG, 63.3 FG%, 67.1 TS%, 4.87 WORP/35 While overshadowed somewhat by teammates Donald Williams and George Lynch, Montross’s 1993 postseason ranks as superior to either’s. The best adjectives to describe
124 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
7. Tyler Hansbrough (SR, 2009) Key Postseason Stats: 19.4 PPG, 8.3 RPG, 2.8 SPG, 81.8 FT%, 58.0 TS%, 4.92 WORP/35 Hansbrough capped his Carolina career in fitting fashion, his final-minute bear-hug with Coach Williams forever etched in our memories. The most prolific free-throw scorer in NCAA history, Tyler added 63 points from the charity stripe in 77 postseason attempts (9.6/game) in ’09. He also stepped up his game defensively during the championship run, garnering multiple steals in each of the first seven postseason contests (3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4). Never a great passer, Hansbrough’s 1.5 assists per game and 0.7 assist-to-turnover ratio were both significantly better than his career averages. He also did the kinds of things that Tar Heel fans learned to expect from him: 28 points and
Photo: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images
Sean May and Raymond Felton teamed up in 2005 to bring Carolina its fourth NCAA title.
Key Postseason Stats: 18.1 PPG, 8.4 RPG, 3.6 APG, 1.0 SPG, 1.8 BPG, 51.7 FG%, 44.0 3Pt%, 61.8 TS%, 4.41 WORP/35 The super-versatile Stackhouse, playing as an undersized 4 in 1995, led Carolina in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and three-point percentage during that postseason. He added nearly two blocks per game for good measure. No other Tar Heel who’s played at least five postseason games has ever led the team in points, rebounds, and assists. Stack’s best games during the ’95 run were all monuments to versatility. In an ACCT championship loss to Wake Forest (and the unconscious Randolph Childress), Stackhouse scored 24 points, secured 8 boards, dished out 4 assists, swiped a steal, and rejected two shots. In a tight first-round NCAAT win against Murray State, Stackhouse helped compensate for an ailing Wallace by contributing a 25-11-5-2-2 line. And in Carolina’s huge Elite Eight upset of Kentucky, the Kinston forward stuffed the stat sheet with a line of 18-12-6-2-2. Hobbled in the Final Four loss to Arkansas with a thigh bruise sustained very early in the contest, Stackhouse was still able to chip in with 18 points and six rebounds. As to what may have happened with a healthy Stack in ’95, Carolina fans will forever be wondering “what if?”
Marches to Remember 8 boards in the ACCT semis against Virginia Tech (including 4 key points and a steal in the final minute), 24 points and 10 rebounds in a Sweet 16 blowout of Gonzaga, and two other postseason double-doubles against Florida State and Villanova.
three games (26 PPG) and hitting 26-30 foul shots. Each of those points mattered too, as the Heels defeated Wake Forest and Clemson in overtime before clinching the championship with a four-point victory over David Thompson and his Wolfpack. Coming off the most dominant three-year run in school history, NC State’s attempt to permanently shift the power structure of Tobacco Road was thwarted by Ford’s greatness—after winning the ’75 ACCT, Carolina quickly resumed its position as the ACC’s alpha dog. Ford’s three NCAAT games weren’t quite as dominant as his transcendent ACCT performance, but he still averaged 18.3 points and 6.3 assists in those contests.
6. James Worthy (JR, 1982) Key Postseason Stats: 15.9 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 58.8 FG%, 61.3 TS%, 3.57 WORP/35 Most Carolina diehards probably expected to see “Big Game James” higher on this list fueled by his sublime 28-point (on 13-17 from the field) masterpiece against Georgetown as the Heels clinched NCAA title #2 (and Dean Smith’s first). And while he had a solid remainder of the postseason (including 16 points and 6 boards in a low-possession, 47–45 ACCT championship game against Virginia), it was short on dominating performances relative to the top five. That speaks more to the greatness of Carolina’s history than to any shortcomings in Worthy’s game. And, of course, if you’re only going to have one truly dominant postseason outing, it might as well be for all the marbles. Still, it wouldn’t take much arm-twisting to convince me to bump him up a few spots.
4. Charlie Scott (JR, 1969) Key Postseason Stats: 25.6 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 2.7 APG, 53.7 FG%, 75.0 FT%, 57.0 TS% After Final Four losses in ’67 and ’68, Carolina desperately wanted to win Dean Smith his first national championship in ’69 (and win one for Rusty Clark, Dick Grubar, Bill Bunting, and the rest of the class of ’69). And while that dream ultimately came up short (Grubar’s season-ending knee injured sustained in the ACCT final didn’t help matters), junior Charlie Scott did everything in his power to make it a reality. After a slow start to the postseason (11 points on 3-13 shooting in an ACCT first round blowout of Clemson), Scott started to click in the ACCT semis—dropping 23 on Wake Forest in a come-from-behind win. The next day, he exploded for one of the truly memorable games in
5. Phil Ford (FR, 1975) Key Postseason Stats: 22.2 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 4.8 SPG, 52.3 FG%, 89.7 FT%, 61.1 TS% Without question the greatest freshman postseason in Carolina history, Ford’s ’75 run ranks in the top five among all classes. He dominated the ACCT by scoring 78 points over
Individual Postseason Statistics For The Top 27 Player 1. Ty Lawson (2009) 2. Lennie Rosenbluth (1957) 3. Sean May (2005) 4. Charlie Scott (1969) 5. Phil Ford (1975) 6. James Worthy (1982) 7. Tyler Hansbrough (2009) 8. Jerry Stackhouse (1995) 9. Eric Montross (1993) 10. Larry Miller (1968) 11. Al Wood (1981) 12. Tyler Hansbrough (2008) 13. Raymond Felton (2005) 14. Wayne Ellington (2009) 15. Donald Williams (1993) 16. George Lynch (1993) 17. Phil Ford (1977) 18. Sam Perkins (1982) 19. Vince Carter (1998) 20. Dennis Wuycik (1972) 21. Hubert Davis (1991) 22. Bob McAdoo (1972) 23. Brad Daugherty (1985) 24. Mike O’Koren (1977) 25. Mitch Kupchak (1975) 26. J.R. Reid (1987) 27. Jason Capel (2001)
G
MPG
PPG
RPG
APG
SPG
BPG
5 8 8 7 6 8 8 8 9 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 7 8 8 6 8 6 7 7 6 7 5
33.0 – 30.5 36.9 38.0 36.3 31.0 35.0 29.8 38.7 35.4 33.6 33.8 34.0 28.1 30.6 33.0 38.1 31.8 31.2 29.9 33.2 37.4 31.9 36.5 34.1 35.2
20.8 30.8 20.5 25.6 22.2 15.9 19.4 18.1 16.1 21.9 18.0 20.9 16.0 19.4 17.2 14.2 17.0 13.6 15.8 19.3 17.1 18.7 15.4 16.0 17.8 17.6 13.0
4.2 9.4 10.1 6.0 2.7 6.1 8.3 8.4 8.2 8.6 8.0 9.1 5.5 5.3 1.8 10.4 1.9 7.6 5.4 5.5 2.9 11.8 11.4 8.0 11.7 7.0 7.8
6.8 0.1 1.5 2.7 4.8 1.6 1.5 3.6 0.8 2.0 1.6 0.9 5.8 2.9 0.9 1.3 4.9 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.0 1.3 4.8
3.2 – 0.9 – – 1.1 2.8 1.0 0.9 – 1.0 1.6 1.1 0.4 1.2 2.0 – 0.9 0.9 – 0.5 – 0.3 – – 1.6 0.8
0.2 – 1.1 – – 0.9 0.0 1.8 1.3 – 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 – 1.1 1.0 – 0.1 – 1.1 – – 0.6 0.2
TO /G 1.4 – 2.8 3.82 5.7 2.4 2.1 3.3 1.7 – 1.6 2.3 3.3 1.6 1.0 2.3 – 1.4 0.9 – 1.4 – 3.0 – 4.0 1.9 1.0
PF /G 1.6 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.9 2.6 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.1 2.0 1.8 3.0 0.9 2.7 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.3 1.8
A:TO
FG %
FT %
4.86 – 0.55 1.13 0.85 0.68 0.71 1.12 0.47 – 1.00 0.39 1.77 1.77 0.89 0.57 – 0.73 1.57 – 1.64 – 0.67 – 0.25 0.69 4.80
50.0 48.7 62.4 53.7 52.3 58.8 47.4 51.7 63.3 47.3 53.7 53.0 42.5 53.7 45.5 49.5 46.7 52.8 56.0 53.5 56.3 48.3 68.2 62.0 59.7 64.8 56.8
76.5 70.0 76.0 75.0 89.6 69.2 81.8 68.8 73.8 68.9 66.7 76.8 75.0 66.7 85.7 70.6 91.7 80.5 69.7 81.6 95.0 75.7 72.0 68.6 57.7 73.8 57.1
3Pt % 50.0 – – – – – 0.0 44.0 – – – 0.0 44.7 52.1 43.9 0.0 – – 40.9 – 58.8 – – – – – 47.8
TS % 64.8 52.8 65.7 57.0 61.1 61.3 58.0 61.8 67.1 50.9 56.3 58.1 59.3 66.3 61.9 52.8 54.5 65.0 63.2 61.5 71.0 53.6 69.3 63.9 59.9 62.2 68.7
FTA Rate 91.1 41.0 49.5 32.4 55.8 45.9 79.4 73.6 77.2 34.9 38.9 47.9 50.6 19.6 25.0 32.4 39.1 56.9 39.3 69.0 23.0 42.5 37.9 49.3 33.8 53.2 15.9
3PtA Rate 32.1 – 0.0 – – – 4.1 28.7 0.0 – – 1.7 54.0 44.9 58.9 1.0 – – 26.2 – 39.1 – – – – 0.0 52.3
WORP / 35 7.56 – 5.01 – – 3.57 4.92 4.41 4.87 – 3.83 4.10 3.71 3.40 3.20 3.52 – 3.92 3.63 – 3.41 – 3.79 – – 3.47 3.67
WORP+1 136 – 106 – – 86 103 103 113 – 113 78 103 125 117 91 – 87 91 – 122 – 86 – – 116 135
1. WORP+ is a measure of how a player’s postseason compares to his complete season. A WORP+ of 100 means that the player’s WORP was identical between the regular and postseasons. A WORP+ of 105 means his postseason WORP was 5% better than his complete season WORP; a WORP+ of 95 means it was 5% worse. Any WORP+ over 100 is very impressive, since the average caliber of opponent is much stronger in the postseason (a WORP+ of 80 is average) 2. For the four NCAAT games only.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 125
UNC Heroes of Yesteryear North Carolina All-Time (Single Season) Postseason Leaders (5 or more games played) Points/Game
Rebounds/Game
1. Lennie Rosenbluth (1957)
30.8
1. Pete Brennan (1957)
12.6
2. Charlie Scott (1969)
25.6
2. Antawn Jamison (1998)
12.1
3. Phil Ford (1975)
22.2
3. Rusty Clark (1968)
12.0
4. Larry Miller (1968)
21.9
4. Bob McAdoo (1972)
11.8
5. Tyler Hansbrough (2008)
20.9
5. Mitch Kupchak (1975)
11.7
6. Ty Lawson (2009)
20.8
6. Brad Daugherty (1985)
11.4
7. Sean May (2005)
20.5
7. Rusty Clark (1967)
11.1
8. Hubert Davis (1992)
20.2
8. J.R. Reid (1988)
10.9
T-9. Larry Miller (1967)
20.0
9. George Lynch (1993)
10.4
T-9. Michael Jordan (1983)
20.0
10. Rasheed Wallace (1994)
10.2
Assists/Game
Steals/Game
1. Kenny Smith (1987)
8.0
1. Ty Lawson (2009)
3.2
2. Ed Cota (1997)
7.3
2. Tyler Hansbrough (2009)
2.8
3. Ty Lawson (2009)
6.8
3. Derrick Phelps (1994)
2.4
T-4. Ed Cota (1998)
6.4
4. Rick Fox (1989)
2.3
T-4. Ty Lawson (2007)
6.4
5. Derrick Phelps (1993)
2.1
6. Ed Cota (2000)
6.3
T-6. Derrick Phelps (1992)
2.0
7. Derrick Phelps (1992)
6.2
T-6. George Lynch (1993)
2.0
T-8. Jimmy Black (1982)
6.0
T-6. George Lynch (1992)
2.0
T-8. Steve Bucknall (1989)
6.0
T-6. Joe Forte (2001)
2.0
10. Raymond Felton (2005)
5.8
10. Jimmy Black (1982)
1.8
1. Eric Montross (1994)
3.4
1. Ty Lawson (2009)
4.86
2. Brendan Haywood (2001)
3.0
2. Jason Capel (2001)
4.80
3. Brendan Haywood (2000)
2.5
3. Matt Doherty (1983)
3.60
4. Rasheed Wallace (1995)
2.3
4. Henrik Rodl (1993)
3.50
5. Brandan Wright (2007)
2.0
5. Ty Lawson (2007)
3.46
6. Scott Williams (1988)
1.9
6. Kevin Madden (1988)
3.17
T-7. Sam Perkins (1981)
1.8
T-7. King Rice (1991)
3.00
T-7. Sam Perkins (1983)
1.8
T-7. Quentin Thomas (2008)
3.00
T-7. Jerry Stackhouse (1995)
1.8
9. Jimmy Black (1982)
2.82
10. Warren Martin (1985)
1.7
10. Jeff Lebo (1987)
2.67
Blocks/Game
A:TO (> 2 APG)
3PT% (15+ 3PAs)
WORP/35 (1980-current) 1. Ty Lawson (2009)
7.56
1. Hubert Davis (1991)
58.8
2. Sean May (2005)
5.01
2. Joe Wolf (1987)
56.3
3. Tyler Hansbrough (2009)
4.92
3. Wayne Ellington (2009)
52.1
4. Eric Montross (1993)
4.83
T-4. Rashad McCants (2004)
50.0
5. Jerry Stackhouse (1995)
4.41
T-4. Ty Lawson (2009)
50.0
6. Tyler Hansbrough (2008)
4.10
T-4. Ademola Okulaja (1997)
50.0
7. Sam Perkins (1982)
3.92
7. Jeff Lebo (1988)
48.5
8. Al Wood (1981)
3.83
8. Jason Capel (2001)
47.8
9. Brad Daugherty (1985)
3.79
T-9. Reyshawn Terry (2007)
45.8
10. Raymond Felton (2005)
3.71
T-9. Steve Bucknall (1989)
45.8
FT% (20+ FTAs)
FG% (40+ FGAs)
1. Shammond Williams (1998)
97.4
1. Brad Daugherty (1985)
68.2
2. Hubert Davis (1991)
95.0
2. J.R. Reid (1987)
64.8
3. Phil Ford (1977)
91.7
3. Eric Montross (1992)
63.8
4. Steve Bucknall (1989)
90.9
4. Eric Montross (1993)
63.3
5. Phil Ford (1975)
89.6
5. Eric Montross (1994)
62.8
6. Marvin Williams (2005)
88.9
6. Rasheed Wallace (1995)
62.5
7. Donald Williams (1993)
85.7
7. Sean May (2005)
62.4
8. John Kuester (1977)
85.0
T-8. Dave Popson (1987)
62.1
9. Shammond Williams (1997)
84.4
T-8. Kevin Madden (1989)
62.1
10. Ty Lawson (2008)
83.6
T-10. Mike O’Koren (1977)
62.0
T-10. Joe Wolf (1987)
62.0
126 | Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010
UNC postseason history. Considering the stage (ACCT championship), the opponent (Duke), and the circumstances (Vic Bubas’s final ACC game), Scott’s 40-point outburst (on 17-23 shooting) is among the finest in conference history. In the East Regional final, Charlie again had a game for the ages; the final two of his 32 points resulting in a buzzerbeating win against Lefty Driesell’s Davidson team. That tough, game-winning jumper off the dribble is easily on the short list of greatest shots in Carolina history. Scott added six boards and four assists to help beat the Wildcats. Despite two disappointing (and lopsided) losses in the Final Four, the New York City junior continued to impress, averaging 25.5 points, 5 rebounds, and 3.5 assists in those games. In terms of pure scoring production, drama, and signature performances, Charlie Scott’s 1969 postseason may be unparalleled in Carolina history.
3. Sean May (JR, 2005) Key Postseason Stats: 20.5 PPG, 10.1 RPG, 1.1 BPG, 62.4 FG%, 76.0 FT%, 65.7 TS%, 5.01 WORP/35 One of the truly dominant prolonged stretches of paint mastery in Tar Heel history, these postseason numbers fail to include the 32-12 and 26-24 lines that May accumulated in wins against Florida State and Duke to end the regular season. A double-double machine, Sean racked up five such games in eight ’05 postseason appearances, culminating with a 26-point, 10-rebound effort in a championship-clinching victory over Illinois. “Big May” also taught graduate-level courses on post play against Iowa State (24-17) in the Round of 32, and Wisconsin (29-12) in the Elite Eight. In fact, over the season’s final three games, he raised his play to an even higher stratosphere (one that Tar Heel fans weren’t even aware had existed)—averaging 25.7 points and 9.7 boards as UNC vanquished Big Ten foes Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Illinois en route to cutting down the nets in St. Louis.
2. Lennie Rosenbluth (SR, 1957) Key Postseason Stats: 30.8 PPG, 9.4 RPG, 52.8 TS% After a terrific regular season in which he averaged 27 points and 8.5 rebounds, and shot 48.2% from the field in 24 games, Rosenbluth’s bar for improvement was set insanely high. Yet, in eight postseason games, the bomber from the Bronx was still able to raise that bar—upping his averages to 30.8 points, 9.4 rebounds, and 48.7% from the field. In the ACCT championship, Rosenbluth torched South Carolina for 38 points (on 15-25 shooting) and 13 boards. He averaged 35.3 points and 9.7 rebounds in three ACCT contests. Picking up right where he left off, Rosenbluth scored 29 and 39 points in UNC’s first two NCAAT games. Only mediocre shooting in the 1957
Marches to Remember Final Four prevented Lennie from topping this list. In those two match-ups (triple OT wins vs. Michigan State and Kansas), Rosenbluth made just 33.3% of his field goals (19-57). This included an abysmal 11-42 performance against Michigan State that Carolina was lucky enough to overcome. As an aside, could you imagine the heat that, say, a Rashad McCants or Tyler Hansbrough would take today (in the messageboard, 24-hour-newscycle era) if he shot 11-42 in a Final Four game? One poor performance aside, though, Lennie Rosenbluth was an absolute monster during the 1957 postseason. While I have him ranked second, I wouldn’t take umbrage at any Carolina fan who would like to move Rosenbluth to that top spot.
1. Ty Lawson (JR, 2009)
Photo: Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Sport
Key Postseason Stats: 20.8 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 3.2 SPG, 4.9 A:TO, 50.0 FG%, 50.0 3Pt%, 76.5 FT%, 64.8 TS%, 7.56 WORP/35 Upon viewing this selection, some may want to accuse me of recency bias. But in my defense, let’s let the numbers do the talking. In North Carolina’s postseason history (for those who have played at least five games), Ty Lawson’s 2009 numbers rank in the top ten in the
Biggest Postseason WORP/35 Improvements and Declines (1980-2009) Another way to measure the greatness of a player’s postseason is to compare it to his season as a whole. This table lists the Tar Heels (from 1980-2009, since complete statistics have been available) who have had the largest postseason WORP / 35 increases and decreases. Largest Increases in WORP/35
Largest Decreases in WORP/35
1. Ty Lawson (JR, 2009)
+2.00
1. Joe Forte (SO, 2001)
-3.38
2. Matt Doherty (JR, 1983)
+1.20
2. Jeff McInnis (SO, 1995)
-2.40
3. Jason Capel (JR, 2001)
+0.95
3. Ed Cota (SR, 2000)
-2.33
4. Ronald Curry (SO, 2001)
+0.90
4. Antawn Jamison (JR, 1998)
-1.62
5. Eric Montross (SO, 1992)
+0.72
5. Donald Williams (JR, 1994)
-1.54
6. Shammond Williams (JR, 1997)
+0.70
6. Danny Green (SR, 2009)
-1.51
7. Wayne Ellington (JR, 2009)
+0.68
7. Jawad Williams (SR, 2005)
-1.49
8. Ranzino Smith (SR, 1988)
+0.64
8. Kevin Salvadori (SO, 1992)
-1.46
9. King Rice (SR, 1991)
+0.63
9. Pete Chilcutt (SO, 1989)
-1.41
10. Brad Daugherty (FR, 1983)
+0.62
10. Danny Green (JR, 2008)
-1.35
11. Hubert Davis (JR, 1991)
+0.61
11. Michael Jordan (FR, 1982)
-1.33
12. Eric Montross (JR, 1993)
+0.60
12. Rasheed Wallace (SO, 1995)
-1.31
13. Brian Reese (JR, 1993)
+0.59
13. Michael Jordan (SO, 1983)
-1.25
14. Eric Montross (FR, 1991)
+0.49
14. Brian Reese (SR, 1994)
-1.22
T-15. J. R. Reid (FR, 1987)
+0.48
T-15. Dante Calabria (JR, 1994)
-1.21
T-15. Alex Stepheson (SO, 2008)
+0.48
T-15. Joe Wolf (SO, 1985)
-1.21
T-17. Donald Williams (SO, 1993)
+0.46
17. Tyler Hansbrough (SO, 2007)
-1.17
T-17. Derrick Phelps (FR, 1991)
+0.46
18. Buzz Peterson (SR, 1985)
-1.16
19. Al Wood (SR, 1981)
+0.44
19. Tyler Hansbrough (JR, 2008)
-1.15
20. King Rice (FR, 1988)
+0.43
T-20. Jackie Manuel (SR, 2005)
-1.14
21. Ed Cota (FR, 1997)
+0.42
T-20. Matt Doherty (SO, 1982)
-1.14
22. Serge Zwikker (SO, 1995)
+0.41
22. Warren Martin (JR, 1985)
-1.13
23. Julius Peppers (FR, 2000)
+0.39
23. Kevin Salvadori (SR, 1994)
-1.10
24. Rick Fox (SO, 1989)
+0.38
T-24. Brandan Wright (FR, 2007)
-1.04
25. King Rice (SO, 1989)
+0.34
T-24. George Lynch (SO, 1991)
-1.04
Ty Lawson’s transcendent tournament performance helped Roy Williams earn his second national championship.
following categories: points (6th), assists (3rd), steals (1st), A:TO (1st), 3Pt% (T-4th), WORP/35 (1st). Throw in his 4.2 RPG and unbelievable scoring efficiency—especially for a point guard—and you have the ingredients for the greatest postseason performance in Tar Heel hoops history. Really, the only negative one could point to in Lawson’s postseason run is that he missed the first three games with a much-publicized toe injury (which probably cost UNC an ACCT three-peat). He also missed an opportunity to pad his stats against 16-seed Radford—the five teams he faced in the NCAAT were all in statistician Ken Pomeroy’s top 45 (and the last four were in the top 15). Consider this: Ty’s worst game of the 2009 postseason was against Oklahoma. His numbers? 19 points, 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, 1 turnover. He was both exceedingly consistent and thoroughly dominating throughout Carolina’s championship run. In the annals of UNC basketball, no player has combined such steady greatness over the course of an entire postseason. Congrats, Ty—you’re #1 for now (until the next great Tar Heel tournament legend makes his mark on the history books). MSP Adrian Atkinson is the editor of Tar Heel Tip-Off. A 1999 University of Richmond graduate and life-long Tar Heel fan, he is an environmental economist who lives in Raleigh with his wife Katya.
Tar Heel Tip-Off 2009–2010 | 127
2009
NORTH CAROLINA TAR HEELS
2010
R O S T E R No. 1 2 5 11 13 15 21 24 31 32 34 43 44
Name Marcus Ginyard Marc Campbell Dexter Strickland Larry Drew II William Graves Leslie McDonald Deon Thompson Justin Watts John Henson Ed Davis David Wear Travis Wear Tyler Zeller
Ht. 6'5" 6'1" 6'3" 6'2" 6'6" 6'4" 6'9" 6'4" 6'10" 6'10" 6'10" 6'10" 7'1"
Weight 210 175 180 180 240 215 245 210 195 225 225 235 240
Coaching Staff: Roy Williams—Head Coach Joe Holladay—Director of Basketball Operations Steve Robinson—Assistant Coach Chris Hirth—Head Athletic Trainer Jerod Haase—Assistant Coach
Position SF/SG PG PG/SG PG SF SG/SF PF SG/SF PF/SF C PF PF C
Class RS-SR RS-SR FR SO RS-JR FR SR SO FR SO FR FR SO
Hometown (High School) Alexandria, VA (Bishop O’Connell) Raleigh, NC (Ravenscroft) Rahway, NJ (St. Patrick) Encino, CA (Woodland Hills Taft) Greensboro, NC (Dudley) Memphis, TN (Briarcrest Christian School) Torrance, CA (Torrance) Durham, NC (Jordan) Tampa, FL (Sickles) Richmond, VA (Benedictine) Huntington Beach, CA (Mater Dei) Huntington Beach, CA (Mater Dei) Washington, IN (Washington)
Eric Hoots—Director of Player Relations and Video Coordinator C.B. McGrath—Assistant Coach Jonas Sahratian—Strength & Conditioning Coordinator Roster data are courtesy of the University of North Carolina’s Official Athletic Site (http://tarheelblue.cstv.com).
S C H E D U L E Date 10/16/09 11/06/09 11/09/09 11/11/09 11/15/09 11/19/09 11/20/09 11/23/09 11/29/09 12/01/09 12/05/09 12/12/09 12/19/09 12/22/09 12/28/09 12/30/09 01/04/10 01/10/10 01/13/10 01/16/10 01/20/10 01/26/10 01/31/10 02/04/10 02/07/10 02/10/10 02/13/10 02/16/10 02/20/10 02/24/10 02/27/10 03/02/10 03/06/10 3/11-3/14 3/18-4/5
Opponent / Event Late Night with Roy Williams Belmont Abbey (Exhibition) Florida International (Coaches vs. Cancer Classic) NC Central (Coaches vs. Cancer Classic) Valparaiso Ohio State (Coaches vs. Cancer Classic) Syracuse or California (Coaches vs. Cancer Classic) Gardner-Webb Nevada Michigan State (ACC/Big Ten Challenge) Kentucky Presbyterian Texas Marshall Rutgers Albany Charleston Virginia Tech Clemson Georgia Tech Wake Forest NC State Virginia Virginia Tech Maryland Duke NC State Georgia Tech Boston College Florida State Wake Forest Miami Duke ACC Tournament NCAA Tournament
Location Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC New York, NY New York, NY Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Lexington, KY Chapel Hill, NC Dallas, TX Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Charleston, SC Chapel Hill, NC Clemson, SC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Raleigh, NC Chapel Hill, NC Blacksburg, VA College Park, MD Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC Atlanta, GA Chestnut Hill, MA Chapel Hill, NC Winston-Salem, NC Chapel Hill, NC Durham, NC Greensboro, NC TBD
Schedule is courtesy of Inside Carolina (http://northcarolina.scout.com/3/bbschedule.html).
Time / TV 7:00/-7:30/TarHeelBlue.com 7:00/ESPNU 9:00/ESPNU 4:00/FSS 9:15/ESPN2 5 or 7:15/ESPN2 7:30/FSS 6:45/FSN 9:00/ESPN 12:30/CBS 7:30/TBA 2:00/ESPN 7:00/FSS 8:30/ESPN2 7:30/TBA TBA/TBA 7:45/FSN 9:00/ESPN 2:00/ESPN 7:00/ESPN 9:00/Raycom 7:45/FSN 9:00/Raycom 2:00/FSN 9:00/Raycom-ESPN 4:00/ESPN 9:00/Raycom 12:00/CBS 7:00/ESPN 2:00/CBS 8:00/Raycom 9:00/ESPN TBD/Raycom-ESPN-ESPN2 TBD/CBS